Anyone here who thinks Terri shouldn't be starved and dehydrated to death?

[Riding this Donkey]

This is a very controversial issue and I for one feel her husband is doing immeasurable harm to a family who absolutely loves and adores their daughter.

I have seen some who feel as I, but I am wondering if there are more?

FYI, I am a liberal but a liberal who separates this issue from abortion and the right to die.

I am in favor of dying with dignity, but there is much to this story.

Terri's wishes were not in writing and only witnessed by her "husband" and his sister in passing during a television show.

Just because this is not a life you would want for yourelf, does not mean that it is not a life worth living.

If she were on a breathing machine to be kept alive, I would say she deserves to die in piece, but the only "artificial" means keeping her alive is nourishment.

[Career Prole]

1. Peace.

"Piece" sounds like it hurts. :eyes:

[hector459]

169. Be "starved" and "dehydrated to death?"

I don't get it. Letting nature take its course is now an action to starve and dehydrate someone? If the right wing is so "Christian" and so convinced about the rapture, what does it mean when they want to deny someone the privilege of meeting their God by keeping them alive here on earth in a state of vegetation? Do they really believe in the Christian doctrine and the Gospel or don't they?

[morningglory]

198. I would give her a kiss, hand her a spoon and a bowl of oatmeal

and say "Girl, your mouth is open. You are halfway there."
On edit: that is what I told my husband to do with me if I end up like that.

[LisaL]

252. Again, the judge already ruled nothing like this can be allowed

to happen. In other words, nobody can feed her orally once her feeding tube is removed.

[phylny]

453. She wouldn't BE able to follow directions and swallow anyway n/t

[Career Prole]

263. Yes. It would appear that "God's will" is subject to human interpretation.

How much clearer could it possibly be?

[Longhorn79]

279. false choice

is what you just offered the reader of your post. Either let nature take it's course and she dies, or keep her artificially alive. That can't be applied to her situation because by the same logic, you would allow a paralyzed individual and a weak 95 year old grandmother to perish because they couldn't properly feed themselves. If you or I was in a motorcycle accident, and broke both arms, we might starve to death without the "interference" of others. If the body cannot function even temporarily on its own (heartbeat, lungs, etc.) then it is a different story. Food and water should always be supplied to those who will live with it, and cannot live without it.

[bear425]

2. Ok, then.

So what if after the feeding tube is removed, they put food in front of her. If she can eat it on her own, she gets to live. What say you?

[Riding this Donkey]

How about she is allowed some therapy to see if she can eat

by herself before they pull out her feeding tube.

You know this has been denied her, don't you?

[Bouncy Ball]

14. This hasn't been denied to her, as you put it.

How many times do I have to say it? How many times do I have to provide links to the most basic of medical information to get people to understand that without a cerebral cortex she can't even MOVE, much less feed herself? Hell, she probably cannot see. She can't speak, she can't communicate, she can't feel emotions, etc. etc.

On edit:

Prefrontal Cortex--

Problem Solving, Emotion, Complex Thought

Motor Association Cortex--

Coordination of complex movement

Primary Motor Cortex--

Initiation of voluntary movement

Primary Somatosensory Cortex--

Receives tactile information from the body

Sensory Association Area--

Processing of multisensory information

Visual Association Area--

Complex processing of visual information

Visual Cortex--

Detection of simple visual stimuli

Wernicke's Area--

Language comprehension

Auditory Association Area--

Complex processing of auditory information

Auditory Cortex--

Detection of sound quality (loudness, tone)

Speech Center--

(Broca's Area) Speech production and articulation

[proud2BlibKansan]

237. Good post

Maybe it needs to be screamed from the rooftops here at DU.

SHE HAS NO BRAIN. IT IS MUSH. THERE IS NO HOPE OF RECOVERY.

Anyone who doesn't understand this by now needs to take a refresher course in basic biology.

It is just silly to argue for keeping her alive. For all practical purposes, she is already dead. The humane thing to do is to let her go.

[zann725]

336. I'm betting she's on Medicare. Should we wait until THEY pull-the-plug

on her? If not Medicare, WHO'S paying her medical bills? No matter what health plan she's on, someone has to be paying BIG for the "difference." I'm betting it's NOT her holier-than-thou parents.

[janx]

359. You are correct. She is on Medicare. She is a ward of the state. n/t

[ultraist]

361. She is not a ward of the state, her husband has legal guardianship

If she were a ward of the state, he'd have no say. Just because she is on medicare doesn't mean she's a a ward of the state.

[janx]

403. She is a ward of the state. If you don't believe me, read the

court documents.

[ultraist]

408. Then how can her husband have legal guardianship?

If she is a ward of the state, the state has guardianship.

If he has guardianship, he makes the legal decisions for her.

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00060/004197/title/Subject/topic/Wills,%20Trusts,%20and%20Estate%20Planning_Guardianship%20and%20Conservatorship/filename/wills,trusts,andestateplanning_1_1148

What Is Guardianship?

Florida Bar Association


A guardianship is a legal proceeding in the circuit courts of Florida in which a guardian exercises the legal rights of an incapacitated person.


WHAT IS A GUARDIAN?

A guardian is an individual or institution such as a bank trust department appointed by the court to care for an incapacitated person.called a "ward".or for the ward's assets.


HOW IS A PERSON DETERMINED TO BE INCAPACITATED?

Any adult may file with the court a petition to determine another person's incapacity setting forth the factual information upon which they base their belief that the person is incapacitated. The court then appoints a committee of two professionals, usually physicians, and a lay person to examine the person and report its findings to the court. The court also appoints an attorney to represent the person alleged to be incapacitated. If the examining committee concludes that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated in any way, the court will dismiss the petition. If the examining committee finds the person to be incapable of exercising certain rights, however, the court schedules a hearing to determine whether the person is totally or partially incapacitated. A guardian is usually appointed at the end of the incapacity hearing.

[janx]

414. He is still legally her husband. That's the point. And in Florida

law, the spouse is the next of kin, the one who makes the decision in a case like this. So essentially what this means (from what I gather) is that the state is paying for her care under his direction.

[phylny]

454. Those who keep spouting off that same kind of rhetoric will never

understand, no matter how plainly you put it.

The rest of us understand "No cerebral cortex means no eating, no speaking, no sitting, no laughing, no following directions, no chance for any recovery whatsoever, NO TERRI."

Unfortunately, you can explain it 50,000 times, and people simply wouldn't "get" it.

edited for clarity, I hope.

[KharmaTrain]

351. Sunday Morning...350 Posts Later...

You nailed this spot on.

The fact she needs feeding should tell someone how bad off her situation is.

I face having to pull the tube on my mother. She was in a state almost as you state, but she wanted to go naturally and, with hospice care, she did peacefully after a prolonged illness.

This poor lady has cease to be the moment she stopped communicating...she functions, but only with assistance. If this were in "the wild" or even 100 years ago, this argument would have been moot since she would have long since passed.

I strongly suggest any person with compassion who thinks this woman is actually alive in any legal sense should read the true story and not the hype of the right-wing corporate media.

[bear425]

16. What type of therapy do you speak of? n/t

[Lars39]

26. That's been done. Read the court documents.

[BornaDem]

24. The judge has already ruled that nobody is allowed to give her food...

or water once the feeding tube is removed. It seems that not too long ago, she took communion so some of the nurses started feeding her jello, ice cream and soft things she would be unlikely to choke on. There have been affidavits from the nurses presented to this judge, but he has agreed with her husband that she should not be allowed to receive food by mouth. There are also some new methods that nearly assure that people who can swallow their own saliva like Terri does can be weaned from a feeding tube and taught to eat on their own again. Once again, Terri's husband has ruled out any sort of rehabilitation for her and the judge has agreed. In essence, Terri's husband has decided to starve her to death and the judge in this case has agreed to let him do it.

[Bouncy Ball]

35. Do you know anything about human physiology???

How can someone with no cerebral cortex be "taught" to swallow food?

Someone with no cerebral cortex cannot be taught anything. I deny you to find ANY legit medical information which says otherwise.

You can't. It's not possible.

[Riding this Donkey]

66. I heard experts say on tv, I wish I could remember who that you

could possibly teach her to swallow liquids and food.

[Bouncy Ball]

72. Seriously, I'm not kidding, I am totally shaking my head in disbelief

that anyone could believe, against ALL medical and physiological evidence and information that we have, that someone with no cerebral cortex could be taught ANYTHING.

No cerebral cortex = no perception of stimuli. If you pinched her arm, she wouldn't flinch. She wouldn't feel it.

With no perception of stimuli, she cannot process auditory information. How is she supposed to learn to swallow?

With no perception of stimuli, she cannot see (the visual center is in the cerebral cortex, too). So how can she be taught anything?

With no perception of stimuli, how does she know she has anything in her mouth?

With no cerebral cortex, she can make NO voluntary movements. Swallowing is a voluntary movement. Thus she CANNOT swallow. She cannot be TAUGHT to swallow.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

122. I have no idea, why don't you ask the judge?

Trying to feed her by mouth would most likely result in her choking. Could THAT be why he said that?

Think about it...

[LisaL]

127. So, he wants her to die slowly by starving? God forbids she dies

fast because of chocking? He is one smart man, no doubt about it.

[Bouncy Ball]

130. WOW.

Seriously, you are disturbing to read. So you want her to CHOKE???

[LisaL]

176. It disturbs you that I want her to go fast?

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in wanting her to die slowly from starvation and dehydration? That doesn't disturb you?

[Bouncy Ball]

182. It disturbs me that you want her to CHOKE.

If you want her to go fast, give her an overdose of morphine. But you were advocating her CHOKING.

Geez.

[LisaL]

194. And it disturbs me that you want her to starve to death.

I notice you are not advocating giving her an overdose of morphine, you are perfectly fine if she starves to death over several weeks.
Geez.

[Bouncy Ball]

207. Actually if morpine WERE an option, I'd say that's the most

humane way to go.

But morphine is NOT an option, never has been, and that is not up to me. But yes, I would most definitely say that is much more humane.

So you are wrong again.

[LisaL]

253. What exactly do you have against a death by chocking?

I would say that death by chocking is way more natural than a death by starvation. If she must die, I rather she went fast than slowly starving to death.

[Bouncy Ball]

260. What do you have against death by morpine?

[LisaL]

287. It's illegal?

[Bouncy Ball]

347. So you'd rather her choke. Nice.

[LisaL]

354. Again, if she must die, I rather she died quick.

And look who is talking-you think it's fine she starves to death, but object to chocking?
:wtf:

[Bouncy Ball]

387. I DON'T think it's "fine" that she starves to death,

I'd RATHER her die more quickly (SEE ABOVE---I swear, your reading comprehension skills...).

But seeing as starvation is the ONLY legal option here, this entire subthread is a moot point anyway.

[phylny]

455. Of course, you're absolutely right.

I'm an SLP who used to work with patients who had dysphagia(swallowing disorders) in the hospital and in home healthcare. NO ONE IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION in their right mind would EVER try to "feed" someone who cannot follow directions and can't swallow. NO ONE. I'd bet the ranch that her chart says in BIG LETTERS: NPO. Nothing by mouth.

Doing so is a great way of getting sued when the patient develops aspiration pnemonia.

[BornaDem]

Are you denying that Judge Greer ordered...

within the past month that no one was permitted to offer her food or hydration once the tube was removed?

[janx]

402. Of course he did. Would you want what is left of Terri Schiavo

to asphixiate or develop a lung infection?

[traco]

128. Not only that, but

The judge has also approved that Terri should be cremated immediately after her death. This assures there will not be a autopsy!

[BornaDem]

254. Even I have to admit they will not need an autopsy to know that...

Terri's cause of death will be court ordered starvation. /s I find it very troubling that Michael Schiavo intends to have her immediately cremated. I'm positive that is another of "Terri's wishes" that he and the court intend to fulfill.

[traco]

264. He's got stuff to hide

and the judge is helping him.

Edited to add...this is just MY opinion

[phylny]

456. Please tell me about these new methods.

I WORK with people with dysphagia, and have never heard about any new method that would teach someone who has no cerebral cortex how to swallow safely.

[LisaL]

79. I think the judge already ruled that this or similar things can not be

done.

[bear425]

89. Thank you

Yes, I am aware of this. My comment was rhetorical.

[LisaL]

101. Well, maybe you should ask yourself, why is this judge

worried about things like that? Maybe there is a chance she could be fed by mouth? Otherwise, why even make a ruling that she is not allowed to have anything by mouth after her feeding tube is removed?

[Bouncy Ball]

124. Maybe because he knows her parents

would try to make some bogus video showing them spoonfeeding her, then turn the camera off to get the food out of her mouth, etc.

Maybe because attempting to feed her by mouth carries a real danger of choking?

Lots of reasons, but I see you are only ascribing reasons that are evil in YOUR mind.

Hmmm.

[LisaL]

131. Sure, the judge must be worrying she would die from chocking.

While dying from starvation is a much better option.
That's got to be it.

[bear425]

160. Ok, I'll do that.

In the mean time, perhaps you will ask yourself why Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, feels compelled to interfere in this case. The judge ruled--why does Jeb keep defying the ruling?

[LisaL]

191. Because he can?

[Valerie5555]

335. I again wondered what if he had the audacity to go so far as to sneak in a

milkshake or something to this Schiavo gal and tell her "Okay I'll grant you yet ANOTHER stay on having your feeding tube pulled if you also show that you can drink this."

[nostamj]

3. so, machine to breath = bad

machine to eat = good

I wouldn't want either. and I would haunt any family member who defied my wishes (and common decency) to prolong an existence for their sake.

[Riding this Donkey]

4. She is not brain dead, her heart beats and she breathes on her own. n/t

[nostamj]

12. she's been a vegetable for 15 years

without intervention, constantly, she would have passed naturally.

as I said, I will HAUNT anyone who does this to me.

[Bouncy Ball]

43. She has NO cerebral cortex.

I feel like giving DU a lesson on what the cerebral cortex is responsible for. It's a LOT.

Prefrontal Cortex

Problem Solving, Emotion, Complex Thought

Motor Association Cortex

Coordination of complex movement

Primary Motor Cortex

Initiation of voluntary movement

Primary Somatosensory Cortex

Receives tactile information from the body

Sensory Association Area

Processing of multisensory information

Visual Association Area

Complex processing of visual information

Visual Cortex

Detection of simple visual stimuli

Wernicke's Area

Language comprehension

Auditory Association Area

Complex processing of auditory information

Auditory Cortex

Detection of sound quality (loudness, tone)

Speech Center

(Broca's Area) Speech production and articulation

She's missing everything she needs for anything other than primitive, involuntary responses.

[Baconfoot]

55. The house didn't burn down. Look. The barn is still up. NT

[serryjw]

405. TWO completely different functions

WE are not our hearts, that is only a machine. We are alive IF we have a functioning brain, which she does not have. Technology is keeping her alive. Just because you can, does not mean you should. There is nothing noble about what is happening to her. She is a young woman and her BODY will go on for decades with food and water. BUT she is not alive.

[bear425]

20. Nostamj, that is fault with the op's argument that I found, as well.

It is a terrible situation that Terry and her family is in. However, the law is on the side of the husband. As I have said many times before, please get the proper documentation and make sure your wishes are spelled out.

[Riding this Donkey]

38. The law is on the side of a lot of things that are wrong. How

do you feel about the death penalty, against it right. So am I, but the court says it's ok.

That argument means nothing, absolutely nothing to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. There is not right to die?

[BornaDem]

135. There is a right to die IF you're terminal. If not, no.

[Warren Stupidity]

212. wow

Ok then at least you are consistent. Luckily the courts have long held otherwise, that people have the right to refuse extraordinary medical treatment and in doing so end thier lives.

[BornaDem]

249. Food and water are "extraordinary medical treatment?"

I guess we are all receiving "extraordinary medical treatment" every day of our lives then.

[Warren Stupidity]

356. No, a feeding tube is extraordinary treatment in this case.

Keeping a person with no cerebral cortex alive is extraordinary treatment.

"Do Not Resusitate" is common accepted practice in hospitals. Patients, their health care guardians, and the health care provider professionals reach agreements on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for each patient. "Terminal" is not the only criteria. There are lots of DNR conditions that are not strictly terminal, as in Terri's case, where the patient can be kept alive indefinately, and thus is not 'terminal' but where doing so is pointless as there is no quality of life.

You all act as if Terri's case is unusual. Medically it isn't. I am sure that many of us here on DU have experienced similar cases first hand. For example my mother-in-law was suffering from the last phases of severe alzheimer's disease and had chronic congestive heart failure. My wife's family had to make the tough decision to request that she be classified DNR for her heart problems, and luckily my wife had HCPOA so that there were no legal issues. This was the right thing to do and my mother in law's death was a blessing to her and her family. You and the rest of you who support the continuing intervention of the state in the Schiavo case, and who treat Mr. Schiavo as some kind of monster are either ignorant of what this all means on a personal level or should be ashamed of yourselves for using what ought to be a private matter for political gain.

[BornaDem]

381. You and others keep making comparisons to persons who are...

terminally ill. Terri is NOT terminal. I don't believe that you or anyone else has the right to judge who has "no quality of life" and therefore, that life is "pointless." What makes you think that once we allow Terri to be done away with by the courts, you won't be the next "pointless" life to receive the same treatment?

Please go to DU's Disability Issues forum and read what disabled DUers think of a court ordering Terri to be starved. They understand that leaving their "quality of life" to be judged by people who are proponents of euthanasia means that sooner or later they too will be starved because their life is "pointless" and they are a drain on our economy. Terri even has $ from her parents to support her so she won't be another "burden" for taxpayers to pay for.

Last, the thing that disturbs me most about this case is that the judge has ruled that once the tube (which may be extraordinary treatment) is removed, no one is permitted to offer her food or water by mouth. Why? Because if she swallows saliva, she can probably be fed by mouth? If there is no feeding tube and she can eat like you do, then what is the extraordinary treatment that must be stopped?

[Warren Stupidity]

386. Actually I gave you an example that was rather similar.

My mother in law could have survived for quite some time with treatment. She was in no sense 'terminally ill'. She did require routine intervention to resuscitate her from periodic congestive heart failure episoddes. Her daughter DNR'd her with the painful consent of her immediate family BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Also I believe you are misinformed. Terri has had feeding trials and is incapable of ingesting any food on her own. She will aspirate whatever is put in her mouth and either choke to death of develope pneumonia. She does not have a functional swallow reflex.

Her quality of life is being judged by her husband, as it should be, as he is her legal healthcare guardian.

[BornaDem]

398. I have never read anywhere that Terri has ever been given tests...

to see if she can eat by mouth. I know that her guardian ad litem that Greer removed suggested the tests and was denied as well as removed by Judge Greer. I know her parents have asked for them, but the tests have been denied by Greer. And I know that several nurses who cared for Terri before she was deposited in a hospice have given the court affidavits saying that not only did Terri receive communion by mouth before her husband denied her priest from visiting her, but they also placed ice cream, jello, etc. in her mouth and she was able to consume it.

I have no idea what condition your mother-in-law was in, but I do know that congestive heart failure becomes worse over time although with medication people sometimes live on to become worse again and with or without intervention it is a terminal disease.

Yes, Michael Schiavo, who has an enormous conflict of interest, and despite his failure to follow FL laws in regard to filing information required by the state remains her guardian.

From your responses I feel certain that you are an advocate of euthanasia (with or without consent.) I think it is WRONG and I do not want to see it legalized. For that reason, I think we should agree to disagree.

[janx]

400. Her last tests (swallowing) were in 1993. n/t

[Ladyhawk]

304. Pretty selfish of someone to keep you alive against your wishes.

I would rather die than live like Terri.

Question: would anyone here wish to live like that for the rest of their so-called "lives"?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

5. I have a bit of a problem with starving someone to death...

But that's just me. And I think her husband is a piece of crap. In my opinion, and I know a lot of you disagree, her husband is just trying to get rid of her so he can marry the mother of his children. Rather than divorcing her, he's just going to kill her. I've seen the abuse allegations and the more he fights to have her die, the more he looks like a piece of crap. I'm sure this will get me attacked, but like I said, it's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it whether it's agreed with or not.
Duckie

[Lars39]

13. Read the court documents, they tell a much different

story than what the parents have been putting out.
He could just divorce her and be done with it.
He's turned down a heck of a lot of money to fulfill Terri's wishes.

http://www.abstractappeal.com/

[Merlot]

36. Men have left wives in much less dire circumstances.

If he really wanted to walk away from the situation, he could. He could just leave her to her parents. I'm sure he could get a divorce without any problem. He could move away and never look back. But he doesn't, he stays involved in order to see Terri to her final end.

If you haven't been faced with the question of pulling a feeding tube (like I have) you'll never know how awful it can be to make that decision. But after watching her suffer for 15 years, maybe he feels like it's better not to prolonge her suffering. It's not an easy way to die, but the way she is "living" is not easy either.

[LisaL]

Please! How can she suffer without a cerebral cortex?

According to some, she can't feel a thing. So, HTF is she suffering?

[Lorien]

319. Fish don't have a celebral cortex

Do they suffer? I don't know. They certainly fight to survive when they've been hooked. :shrug:

[Baconfoot]

332. If Terri were a fish, who would offer a million dollars for her? $20topsNT

[Lorien]

401. That wasn't my point

I was simply stating that some functioning lifeforms do at least appear to have a sense of self preservation without a cerebral cortex. But it's a moot point; apparently the woman's cerebral cortex is intact, though presumably inoperable.

[Quixote1818]

460. Fish absolutly do have a cereberal cortex!

http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/faq/pain.htm

Most of the "everyday behaviour" of a fish is controlled by the brainstem and spinal cord. Experiments in which the cerebral hemispheres of fishes were removed have shown that even without these parts of the brain, fishes can maintain normal function and behaviour. Interestingly a human with complete destruction of the cerebral cortex will still respond to noxious stimuli, but feels no pain.

[janx]

466. Good find. A fish has a very tiny cerebral cortex.

Without doubt both fishes and humans respond to noxious stimuli. A fish that has been hooked is obviously responding to a stimulus. Likewise, if you burn yourself, you will very quickly respond to the stimulus, however this response occurs before you feel any pain. Nociception is controlled by the spinal cord and brainstem.

Rose states that the difference in the perception of pain and fear in fishes and humans results from differences in brain structure. The human brain has a massively developed cerebral cortex (the grey folded outer layer). Pain and fear in humans results from the stimulation of several regions of the cerebral cortex. The tiny cerebral cortex of fish brains lack these regions.

This explains why what is left of Terri Schiavo reacts to noxious stimuli--loud noises, flashing lights, etc.

[traco]

137. He could, but then

everything he owns would have to be split with her (or her guardians). It would all be considered marrital assets.

[Baconfoot]

52. Dead people can't be starved to death. NT

[Lars39]

6. Her parents are wackos that have aligned themselves

to Randall Terry. Her husband IS her next of kin, not her parents.
Read the court documents. http://www.abstractappeal.com/

[Riding this Donkey]

11. How many parents do you know wouldn't sell their soul

to keep their children from harm.

How many parents do you know that want their children to die??

How many spouses do you know that want their spouse dead?

It's common sense to me.

I separate this case because something is very wrong here and to talk about someone's parents that way is really not being kind to Terri. I am sure she loved her parents very much.

[Lars39]

22. Michael is trying to fulfill Terri's wish that she not "live"

like that.
Her parents have slandered and libeled him publicly.

[Riding this Donkey]

30. That's one side of the story that you agree with. I agree with the other.

[traco]

140. So funny that he didn't remember her wish to die

until after he received a huge settlement that was suppose to go to her rehabilitation but went to her cheating husbands right-to-die attorney instead!

[Lars39]

210. Wrong. Michael hasn't been in charge of Terri's money.

The court appointed someone to be in charge of the money Terri received.
Michael recieved consortium money(The right of a spouse to the company of,
help of, affection of, and sexual relations with his or her mate.),
which was his to spend any which way he pleased.
He's probably spent it on lawyers.

[traco]

266. He petitioned the court to allow him to pay attorney bills with

Terri's money! The judge approved his request!

[Lars39]

269. Do you have a link to the pertinent court document for that?

[traco]

271. This is what I have found so far

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri's medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri's medical fund on Schiavo's attorney's fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo's primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri's medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a "houseplant" and has used Terri's case on national television to promote his newly published book.

From Terrisfight.org under myths about Terri.

There is a link there to follow too. It is

[Lars39]

281. I don't accept anything from that site, sorry.

[Riding this Donkey]

283. Yeah and I don't accept anything from your sites, na na na na na

lol:P

[Lars39]

288. I aim for the most unbiased sites I can find,

and her parents' site is anything but unbiased.

[traco]

299. Well, Isn't that just special!

I'm not allowed to use info because it comes from a certain site? Yet you are allowed to use any info site you choose to make your points?

[Lars39]

301. The site is obviously biased.

Try to find a site with the court documents instead.

[traco]

305. That site has a section devoted just to court documents

PDF files of the actually filed court documents

[Lars39]

306. Complete set? Or just what the parents want you to see?

[traco]

310. I'm not sure...there seems to be lots there

do you have a site with the complete set?

[Lars39]

312. One of the few fairly unbiased sites is

http://www.abstractappeal.com/

[traco]

334. I checked it out...he claims to be unbiased

but I will have to reserve my feelings on that until I look it over a little more. He seems to have an idea that MS's side is MORE right than her parents. That is not unbiased.

[Lars39]

358. Michael Schiavo is Terri's next of kin.

Not her parents.

[traco]

394. If he wanted to retain that position

he should not have taken up with a mistress. He should not have fathered 2 children outside of his marriage with Terri.

He has turned his back on his marriage vows.

[janx]

404. How long would you have him wait?

And what makes you so eager to judge him?

[traco]

461. The vow he took is

Til death do us part. Until she is legally dead, he should remain true to her.

I'm not judging her any more than most are judging Terri.

[Lars39]

409. And you judge him...

and bare false witness against him.
He is still legally married to Terri, mistress aside.

[traco]

462. Then you advocate him having an affair?

[Lars39]

465. It is none of our business.

Just as his decision to fulfill his wife's wishes are none of our business.

[bear425]

34. How are you sure that Terry loved her parents very much?

And if that is the case, it's irrelevant.

Terry's family is in the worst position possible. I agree with you that it's heartwrenching, but Terry's husband is fighting to free her from her existence, all the while, fulfilling her wishes.

Unfortunately, they weren't in writing to satisfy all the objectors, however, the husband is still the next of kin and has the law on his side.

Anyway, you were looking for people who agree with you, so I will refrain from posting henceforth.

edit: clarity

[Riding this Donkey]

44. They want to keep a daughter that they hate alive. Come on! n/t

[bear425]

58. I think you misunderstood my reply.

I did not imply they hate their daughter. I just don't know how you can be sure Terry loves her parents. Do you know the family?

[cornermouse]

42. "loved" That's past tense.

Interesting.

[Merlot]

48. And how many parents have mercifully let their children go

instead of prolonging their suffering for their own selfish needs?

How many spouses have had to let go of their loved one because that was what the loved one wanted?

Common sense...it goes both ways.

[Riding this Donkey]

61. It goes both ways absolutely and that is all I am trying to say here.

I don't know who is right, but for me it's wrong to starve and dehydrate people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Parents can be in deep denial

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

178. My parent and spouse don't want me to die, but they would let me

if I were in this position and I would appreciate it very much.

[Ladyhawk]

307. I would sell my soul to keep this decision away from my parents.

Well, my father is dead, but I have no doubt my mother, a fundy, would try to keep me alive against my wishes.

Since a surgery date is fast approaching, I'm going to have to make sure she never gets that chance. She's a control freak. :scared: I don't want her anywhere near me if someone has to make a decision to pull the plug.

[LisaL]

323. Are you sure you are not transferring your feelings toward

your parents into Terri's situation? Seems like a lot of people here have problems with their parents.

[Ladyhawk]

327. I'm sure.

I'm also sure my parent would make the wrong decision.

[phylny]

458. I love my children SO MUCH that if, God forbid, they were in a

situation where they had no cerebral cortex left, I would cease any artificial means that were keeping them alive and let them die. To keep them going on and on indefinitely with no cerebral cortex would be the height of selfishness.

It would not be easy, but it's the right thing to do.

[stellanoir]

7. I feel

we have no real way of judging this situation.

The spiritualist in me says,"let her go gracefully, she's been between worlds for so long."

As for the conflict between her family and her husband. . .well
"who among us haven't been there?"

No, on third thought, let her go. I side with the husband, not the clutchy parents. She hasn't much of a life after all for wayyyy too long.

Okay so much for my rambling diatribe. I clearly just did a stream of consciousness thing.

But unlike Terry, I still have one.

Bless her soul.

[Padraig18]

8. Me. n/t

[Paradise]

9. she smiles, she's loved, and she's cared for...

if it were my daughter, i'd want her to live, and i want that for terri, and for her parents.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. she doesn't smile

as she has no self awareness to emote with. She has not cerebral cortex. That is just a fact. That, and the compelling evidence that Terri did not want this sort of treatment is why the courts have consistently ruled in favor of Terri and her right to die.

[Paradise]

339. :( oh god, it's so difficult isn't it :( n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

10. The courts have found "clear and compelling evidence"

that she DID express the desire to NOT be kept alive like this.

Why would anyone want to go against her wishes? Why would anyone want to just shove aside her husband, the man she married, the person she picked as her life partner?

Why does everyone arguing that the feeding tube not be removed refuse to acknowledge that she has NO cerebral cortex, and that without a cerebral cortex, there is no movement, no vision, no language, no emotions, no nothing? That there is no hope of recovery? That this isn't just a coma, but that without the feeding tube forcing her body to stay alive, she would die?

The most basic, most primitive parts of her brain are still there, which is why her heart beats and she breathes. But without any structure in her brain telling her how to move, or anything else, she does not eat and would not eat.

I think it's cruel to force her shell of a body to keep "living" like this. It's not life. But it's not death.

If a beloved pet had no cerebral cortex, such irreversible brain damage there was no hope for recovery and they couldn't see, move, speak, etc, it would be considered cruel to insert a feeding tube to keep them alive for years and years.

Why is it any different for humans? Are humans less than animals?

[Riding this Donkey]

18. Have you taken a look at our court systems today???

Bouncy ball, I have great respect for you and agree almost all of the time.

But because a court says something, or experts say something does not make it so.

Look at how many people on death row were set free, the courts were wrong there too.

[Bouncy Ball]

25. Then look at just how many times her case has been put to

the courts and just how many courts it has been through.

Whether you like it or not, the court system decides such things in presence of a conflict.

I find it appalling that anyone would want to continue to force her body to "live" when there is no chance she'll improve, no chance she'll ever be able to live without a feeding tube. No perception of anything at all.

What a horror.

[Riding this Donkey]

29. How do you really know what her quality of life is.. You don't and

no one really can.

How many people who have had hearing after and appeals and have probably put to death when they were innocent. We will never know will we.

[Lars39]

41. She has no cerebral cortex.

She won't become "Terri" ever again.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. She has no cerebral cortex left.

[ultraist]

276. Why is it a horror if she doesn't know, feel, or think anything?

There are a LOT of unknowns about the brain and neurologists admit, they don't know for certain, if she isn't feeling anything, so how can that be a horror for her?

If she's that unaware, she is not suffering. If she wont suffer from starving, she wont suffer from living as she is either. You can't have it both ways, she either is so brain damaged, she can't suffer or she's not.

[Betty]

295. And if she is completely unaware of anything

then what is the point of keeping her body alive?

[ultraist]

298. There may be a few reasons

My point was, it's not "horror" or "cruel" if she is as brain damaged as those who say pull the plug claim. She doesn't know the difference.

They are doing research at Harvard and MIT on regenerative tissue growth and growing whole new organs. She could possibly participate in this cutting edge research which would help MANY people since she would be contributing to the knowledge base as a human subject. This is one reason. (I linked an article about this on the other Terri thread).

Another reason would be to allow her parents to pursue other treatments so they can feel as though they did everything in their power. It's important for family members to feel they did all they could.

What's a good reason to remove the feeding tube since no one really knows what she wanted? If she's not suffering because of her condition, why not let her live?

[Baconfoot]

71. And the courts are wrong here since she is already dead.

Take a look at that anencephalic "baby" again. That "baby" has no chance of becoming a human life. Terri once had a human life. Now, like the baby, she has no cerebral cortex. "She" is no more.

The courts are wrong to recognize life in people with no cerebral cortex.

Even if her body GREW another one, as it were, the result would NOT be Terri, but a different person. Similarly, if one were to transplant YOUR brain into MY body, the resulting organism would NOT BE ME, though it WOULD be you.

In a case like this one, there should be no question of looking to the deceased wishes to be kept alive in a particular state, as they are already dead.

[CindyDale]

39. Didn't the woman who testified for the husband retract her testimony

about Terri's wishes? I am not sure, but I think I remember that. And now I read that the judge discounted Terri's friend's testimony based on an error.

[LisaL]

87. The friend testified that she and Terri had a conversation

in 1982 about Ann Quinlan. Terri, according to the Friend, felt that the parents were wrong to turn off the ventilator, because where there is life, there is hope. The judge mistakenly believed that Ann Quinlan was already dead in 1982, but she was still alive.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. WARNING--extremely disturbing graphic image--do not click on if squeamish

Here is an example of a baby that was born with anencephalia--lack of brain and lack of function, awareness and cognisance.

Theoretically, this could be kept alive by inserting a tube into the stomach and keeping it alive for years, if necessary.

This is the condition of Schiavos brain--which has been infiltrated through much of it's mass by spinal fluid

Would those who would keep Schiavo alive by feeding tubes also recommend that this "baby" be kept alive by inserting a gastric tube into it's stomach to keep it alive?

People have no idea, none whatsoever, as to what in their romantic convictions, or in this case, their religious convictions as to the reality of the situation.

I have personally witnessed the birth of several anencephalics. The usual is to not feed them and that is the reality, folks.

IMAGE REMOVED BY ADMIN

You said:

Just because this is not a life you would want for yourelf, does not mean that it is not a life worth living.

You can answer that question yourself after viewing that picture.

[Riding this Donkey]

23. Terri does not look like that. I told you I am not agains the

right to die with dignity.

But this case is different. I can separate it. You know not everything is an absolute.

[Bouncy Ball]

31. It's not whether Terri looks like that or not.

But whether you would insert a feeding tube into that baby's gastric system to keep it alive. It would have. So would you?

[Malva Zebrina]

37. the principle is the same

would you insert a tube into that "baby" to keep it alive because it did not sign a document or it's parent's did not sign a document that said it should not be kept alive by artificial means?

No.

Schiavo certainly does not look like a newborn anencephalic, but her condition certainly is beginning to look as though she is missing a significant part of her brain, as in this newly born anencephalic. And her brain continues to deteriate into the realm of the same as this anencephalic. That cannot be denied.

Schiavo does not have a brain and what is left of it, is fast becoming nothing more than a mass of spinal fluid.

on edit

and can you see the "smile" on this baby's face? Some who call themselves "pro-life" surely see the smile.

[Bouncy Ball]

50. Terri has no cerebral cortex.

It dissolved and has been replaced by spinal fluid.

Which means all her body can do are primitive, involuntary things.

That's it. Her heart beats, she breathes.

She cannot perceive things visually, she cannot speak, she cannot feel emotion, she cannot move, she can't do anything other than involuntary stuff.

That's no life. And cerebral cortexes do NOT grow back.

[LisaL]

90. Terri looks remarkably well for the woman in her condition.

[Bouncy Ball]

102. Oh well HELL

if she "LOOKS" so good, then damn, leave that feeding tube in!

Heck, that's ALL there is to it is looking good, after all. If you look good, actually not having most of your brain doesn't matter!

:eyes:

[LisaL]

110. Well, when Sarah Scantlin, the woman who was in a condition somewhat

similar to Terri's (all Sarah could do is to blink her eyes) started talking after 20 years, she asked-for more make up, not to have her feeding tube removed. That should give you a clue.

[Malva Zebrina]

118. Sorry, but I am going to demand that you post pictures of that person's

brain scans and then demand that you compare them to the Schiavo scans.

Clearly, in Schiavos scans, the brains has turned into mush with absolutely NO hope for ever returning.

[LisaL]

125. What does it have to do with brain scans?

The woman is worse off physically than Terri. Her foot is twisted, and it looks like her hands are twisted as well. She can not swallow and for 20 years she couldn't talk. Do tell me, if Sarah had a husband who said she wouldn't want to "live that way", would you demand her feeding tube was removed?

[Bouncy Ball]

132. You are missing the BIGGEST difference.

Sarah never lost parts of her BRAIN. She is dealing with the physical after-affects of having been in a COMA, not a persistent vegitative state like Terri.

That's a strawman if I EVER saw one.

[LisaL]

139. Sarah had a severe brain injury, which made her unable

do much more than blink for 20 years. Sarah couldn't have been in a coma for 20 years, since she could blink her eyes. Also, her Drs. were not predicting she would start talking after 20 years, or ever.
Fortunately for Sarah, she wasn't married.

[Bouncy Ball]

144. Well that just proved to me right there how little you know about this

stuff.

Ever heard of the Glasgo Coma Scale? Check it out:

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/glasgow.htm

It's something doctors use to gauge a person's comatose behavior. You will notice that blinking is included.

This ISN'T ABOUT BEING MARRIED. This is about fundamentally different cases. You have deluded yourself if you think Sarah's condition was ANYTHING like Terri's.

Check out that link. People in comas blink. You are wrong.

[LisaL]

149. She was blinking her eyes in response to questions.

I thought you said you read extensively about Sarah?

[Bouncy Ball]

153. I thought YOU clicked on my link.

Here is the scale they use for eye response, since you won't click on the link:

Eye Opening Response

Spontaneous--open with blinking at baseline 4 points
Opens to verbal command, speech, or shout 3 points
Opens to pain, not applied to face 2 points
None 1 point

[LisaL]

168. Maybe you should click on my link.

What is Coma and Persistent Vegetative State?
A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Coma may occur as a complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of injuries, such as head trauma. A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm#What_is

[Bouncy Ball]

171. Are you NOT READING MY POSTS?

Seriously, am I talking to a brick wall here?

I POSTED that in MY post. I put the whole definition in my post JUST LIKE YOU DID.

You are doing this intentionally. I am sure of it. Look at my last post to you before this one. Compare it to yours. Isn't it pretty obvious I clicked on your link? How could I have posted that definition if I didn't? And I read it, too, imagine that.

NOW back to MY link. Explain to me how you are just sure Sarah could not have been in a coma because she blinked in response to stimuli when it SAYS on the Glasgow Coma Scale that that is included in comatose behavior?

You were WRONG and you cannot admit it. Sarah was in a coma. Not a persistent vegitative state. And the fact that she is now talking PROVES she has a CC and always has. And brain tissue does not regenerate.

[Malva Zebrina]

142. Because in order to make a reasonable case, comparisons must be

made. In this case it is the brain function that is the determinator.

Show me the brains scans of the woman you say recovered after twenty years and show me her brain scans after fifteen years in that condition. Do they show deterioration? Do they show spinal fluid?

Come on--you have to more scientific than that in this day and age don't you agree?

Foot drop? Have you a picture of Schiavo's feet? Do you think that she es actuallty sitting up on her own? No way, after fifteen years and with a deteriorating brain.

Believe me, she is not. Believe me, she is not smiling. Believe me, jsut take a look at her brains scans whuich someone here on DU has posted over and over, comparing it to normal brain scans. It is clear that her brains has turned to mush

If you believe that can be reversed, I can only say that that position is an ignorant and uninformed position.

[LisaL]

234. Why don't you do that? You claim there is a big difference, why not

prove it?

[Malva Zebrina]

243. Because you are the one making the claim

and extraordinary claims require evidence.

You cannot make a claim and then accuse someone else of not proving it. LOL

[Bouncy Ball]

129. Sarah never lost her cerebral cortex.

I've read about her case. And she was in a coma, not a persistent vegitative state like Terri.

Lizzy loves to throw out Sarah's case even though that have almost nothing in common. :eyes:

[LisaL]

134. Sarah was not in a coma. She is described as being minimally

aware. She also could blink her eyes. Which means she was not in a coma. And do provide a link about state of Sarah's cerebral cortex, please!

[Bouncy Ball]

148. Here is a link to the Glasgow Coma Scale

which doctors use. And yes she WAS in a coma.

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/glasgow.htm

[LisaL]

159. Here is a definition of coma and PVS.

What is Coma and Persistent Vegetative State?
"A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Coma may occur as a complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of injuries, such as head trauma. A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands."



http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm#What_is

An individual in a coma is unable to respond to his surroundings. Thus, Sarah who could blink her eyes in response to questions was not in a coma.

[Bouncy Ball]

163. Yeah?

And you are proving what?

"What is Coma and Persistent Vegetative State?
A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Coma may occur as a complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of injuries, such as head trauma. A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands."

You are only demonstrating what I've been saying all along.

[Bouncy Ball]

126. Oh. My. God.

I thought I already went through this with you a week ago. I know about that woman's case. SHE HAS A CEREBRAL CORTEX.

Geez Louise. I'm really starting to wonder about you. You are agreeing that if Terri "looks ok" then she should be kept artificially alive indefinitely even though she hardly has any brain tissue left.

Just wow.

[LisaL]

136. I am wondering about you as well. And I already asked you

for a link on Sarah's cerebral cortex, and yet to see it.

[Bouncy Ball]

141. Ok, I'm going to do this REALLY slowly.

Please take note:

With no cerebral cortex, you CANNOT speak.

Do you agree Sarah is speaking?

Then she MUST HAVE A CEREBRAL CORTEX.

It's really not a complex issue! Go read about it!

[LisaL]

143. I am sorry, but that sort of circular argument is no good to me.

Was Sarah's cerebral cortex damaged and to what extent? Did some of it regenerate? Why don't you post a link that describes a state of Sarah's brain, didn't you just post you read about the state of her brain?

[Bouncy Ball]

150. BRAIN TISSUE DOES NOT REGENERATE.

That's it, you are being intentionally, willfully ignorant of basic medical facts. I cannot discuss anything with a person who thinks that if a person blinks they must not be in a coma, and a person who thinks that brain tissue can regenerate.

These are established FACTS in the medical literature and have been for many, many years and you have some kind of agenda which is keeping you from acknowledging them.

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cornermouse]

337. Oh. How does this study relate to those with ALzheimers?

Surely if brain cells regenerate, Alzheimers has to be a myth. Right?

[mondo joe]

166. The fact that you could ask if brain tissue regenerated

Is proof enough you have absolutely no understanding of Terri's condition - or anyone else's.

[Bouncy Ball]

172. She also thinks blinking in response to verbal stimuli means you

cannot be in a coma, which is untrue, too.

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/glasgow.htm

And I tried to show her that, with that link, but she refuses to look at it.

Ignorance of the facts is one thing. WILLFUL ignorance is even worse.

[LisaL]

217. So, how many points would Sarah get on that scale?

Do you know?
Here is a link to the article that claims Sarah was in PVS. It also says she was in a coma. Reporters apparently use these things without making a distinction. So, what state was Sarah really in? Is there a scale for PVS? I know you provided a scale for coma, but according to it, person has to get a low number of points to be considered in a coma. Why is that good? How many points would a person need to be considered in PVS?
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=2481

[Bouncy Ball]

This was in the "About" section of that website:

As a means to accomplish this mission, the CENTER focuses on five key fronts of the modern-day culture war: (1) Religious Liberties, (2) the Sanctity of Life, (3) the Homosexual Agenda, (4) Pornography, and (5) Promoting Creationism.


Sorry, but citing a right wing website on DU won't cut it. Try again.

[LisaL]

232. I keep asking you to provide links on Sarah's condition, and

yet too see one. How many points would she get on that scale? What state was Sarah really in? What was the extent of her brain damage? Was her cerebral cortex damaged and to what extent? You can't provide a single link, can you?

[Bouncy Ball]

239. You can't provide a single link beyond a right wing fundie link.

And I showed you the scale doctors use to assess comas which proved you CAN blink in response to verbal stimuli when in a coma and you said she WASN'T in a coma because she blinked in response to verbal stimuli.

You have yet to read a single thing on the functioning of the cerebral cortex. Until you do that, there's nothing more to say. Because you aren't even up to speed on basic medical facts. You said her brain tissue might regenerate. How does one debate with someone who believes something like that??? Everyone knows once brain cells are lost, they are gone permanently.

Do you also believe the earth is flat? Sarah OBVIOUSLY has a cerebral cortex because she is NOW TALKING. Without one, YOU CANNOT TALK. It's as simple as that. It's like saying someone can breathe with NO LUNGS. It can't be done. Terri has NO cerebral cortex. There is nothing in her body that can tell her larynx to even function.

Terri's brain scans were posted here on DU. In this thread, I believe. Check them out.

[LisaL]

238. Sarah's doctors believe pathways in her brain regenerated.

"Scantlin's doctor, Bradley Scheel, said physicians are not sure why she suddenly began talking but believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated."


Are you saying they have no clue what they are talking about?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/12/national/a143320S21.DTL

[Bouncy Ball]

242. She obviously STILL HAD the pathways to REGENERATE.

Let's see if we can do this again.

Terri = most of her brain MISSING.

Sarah = her brain still intact.

What is so hard to understand about that? How are Terri's pathways supposed to regenerate if the pathways AREN'T THERE????

Seriously, just answer me that ONE question and remember, brain tissue does not regenerate.

You are actually proving my point when you say pathways regenerated in Sarah's brain. She still HAD the pathways.

[LisaL]

246. Recent scientific discoveries show brain cells do regenerate.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926345803.html

"Brain Cells Found to Regenerate

Medical science has always presumed that brain cells killed by physical trauma, stroke or other disease cannot regenerate. Victims of such brain injuries faced no hope of growing new cells to fulfill the function of dead cells, leaving their brains permanently impaired.

However, a landmark study in late 1998 by researchers from Sweden and the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., showed for the first time that brain cells in mature humans can regenerate. The research was reported in the November issue of Nature Medicine. "

[Bouncy Ball]

261. Hmm, so Terri can just re-grow all four lobes of her cerebral

cortex, eh?

Well, it's been fifteen years and she still has no cerebral cortex.

So much for that.

If you can provide more than one link as compared to all the years and years of medical research showing brain tissue does NOT regenerate, then you might be on to something.

Somehow, I doubt you can.

[LisaL]

286. She had the pathways before the accident 20 years ago.

20 years later pathways regenerated. If Sarah's cerebral cortex was intact, why couldn't she speak at all for 20 years?

[LisaL]

257. The fact that you don't know that recent scientific studies show

brain cells do regenerate doesn't say much about your scientific knowledge, does it?
http://www.brainlightning.com/regen.html

[Bouncy Ball]

262. The fact that you EVER thought brain cells could regenerate

and dug up one or two obscure links compared to mountains of evidence that they do not does not prove your point.

Sorry. And what about Terri? Fifteen years now and she hasn't re-grown her cerebral cortex.

I think 99% of the medical community would agree that brain tissue does not just spontaneously regenerate.

Go down to your local hospital and ask around, see what they think.

BTW, I point you to this response of mine below, to the "brainlightening" link you gave (LOL):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3264357&mesg_id=3265444

[LisaL]

280. I give up! I was wrong. Obviously, you know all there is

to know about brain regeneration because you were a good student in your third grade biology class. Any scientific developments must be wrong because your third grad biology textbook said brain cells do not regenerate.
"Elizabeth Gould and Charles Gross report in the Oct. 15 issue of Science that the formation of new neurons or nerve cells -- neurogenesis -- takes place in several regions of the cerebral cortex that are crucial for cognitive and perceptual functions. The cerebral cortex is the most complex region of the brain and is responsible for highest-level decision making and for recognizing and learning about the world. The results strongly imply that the same process occurs in humans, because monkeys and humans have fundamentally similar brain structures."
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/99/q4/1014-brain.htm
Again, sorry, because your scientific knowledge is so obviously superb.
Brain cells do not regenerate, no way, and I don't care how many articles in Science claim they do.
:eyes:

[ultraist]

300. Harvard and MIT are researching regenerative tissue and organ growth

I posted an article about this on the other Terri thread. It's a ways off, but she is a perfect candidate as a human subject for this research. Anytime someone participates as a research subject, it helps MANY people down the road.

[LisaL]

320. There is a lot of research going on.

But of course our DU "scientists" know it all-brain cells do not regenerate. Why do scientists waisting their time? Obviously nobody could ever benefit from this research, cause brain cells don't regenerate, and that's it!

:eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

396. So now you want her to be an UNWILLING SUBJECT for scientific research??

I can't believe what I just read.

[ultraist]

410. Did I say that? Legal guardians or someone w/power of attorney CAN decide

My point is, I find it odd her husband did not seek out the best and most cutting edge treatment for her.

Her husband already had her do one type of experimental treatment. Is he "bad" for signing her up without her consent? He is her legal guardian and can make those decisions.

Is someone who has an unconcious loved one and agrees to new treatments, "bad?"

That is the point of having a legal guardian or next of kin, to make medical decisions for their loved one, if their loved one becomes incapacitated. Have you ever heard of "Power of attorney?"

[Lars39]

411. She had therapy.

[ultraist]

413. She had low end state funded therapy

If your loved one was ill, would you seek out treatment at a local crap ass state funded hospital or would you go to the best facility available?

He tried ONE type of experimental care early on.

I'm simply stating what I WOULD DO for a loved one. But, in our family, we have very high standards of medical care due to the many doctors in our family. Her husband didn't, otherwise, he would never have placed her in a state funded nursing home. Believe me, they do NOT get quality care in those places.

[msanthrope]

416. She was taken to CA for state-of-the-art implantation therapy.....

Early on, she was implanted with electrodes in an experimental attempt..it was not state funded.

[Lars39]

419. He probably had to place her wherever her INSURANCE

allowed him to. She received quite a bit of therapy.
I do not know if the therapy was at "crappy" state facilities.
That is your opinion of those facilities.
What you or your family would do has nothing to do with this situation.

[ultraist]

421. I didn't say it did. I'm just stating what I would do

Most research doesn't require the patient to use their own insurance, but she is on medicare which accepted in a lot of research facilities.

[Lars39]

423. You just want her husband to sign her over for research?

That's a pretty slick argument you got there,
but I don't believe it's going to happen.

[ultraist]

433. He already signed to let her recieve one experimental treatment.

Was it "sick" that my dad participated in a research/experimental treatment?

I think it's sick NOT to pursue every avenue and to be so selfish as to not donate what you can to research as well as donate your organs.

My grandmother donated her entire body to be used by med students.

What's "sick" about that? Are you religious?

[janx]

420. You are drastically mistaken. Here's the timeline from

abstractappeal.com:

December 1963… Terri's birth date

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain

May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy

July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center

November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies

January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon

July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together

January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal

March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home

May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube

February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed)

April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility

January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes

April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed

April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes

April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada

April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored

July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada

(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient

October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor

March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma

November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state

November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan

June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment

August 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

September 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional

October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case

October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is disconnected

October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube

October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request

October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube ; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored

October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law

November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee

November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself

December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor

December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified

April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee

May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds

June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court

July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional

October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech)

December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional

December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment

January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles

January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment

[LisaL]

438. Big surprise-her therapy was before the malpractice award.

For some reason, after getting the money, her devoted and loving husband who promised to take care of her for the rest of HIS life didn't think she needed the therapy anymore?

[janx]

445. A lot of that money was spent before it arrived, Lizzy.

And where's your proof that she had no therapy after that? She had no therapy in the Largo nursing home for all of those years?

[phylny]

459. Any therapist who would provide speech, occupational, or

physical therapy for someone with no cerebral cortex would lose their license and certification.

Simple as that.

[Misunderestimator]

418. Yes you did say that... You did not say "experimental treatment", you said

"It's a ways off, but she is a perfect candidate as a human subject for this research. Anytime someone participates as a research subject, it helps MANY people down the road."

No, please enlighten me about "power of attorney" that's a term I've never heard before... (/sarcasm)

Terri's husband IS her next of kin. One of the many reasons I want gay marriage so much, so that if my wishes are unclear or if I don't have sufficient documentation, my spouse is the one who would make decisions in such a case. I would NOT want my parents or anyone else to make that decision. Terri didn't give anyone power of attorney to my knowledge.

[Ladyhawk]

309. Bouncy Ball, quite probably this isn't worth your time...geez.

Why can't someone understand the difference between having a cerebral cortex and not having one? *shakes head*

[Bouncy Ball]

348. It's baffling, isn't it?

[ultraist]

364. Have you read anything about the research they are doing at Harvard?

It's very interesting. Regenerative tissue and organ growth.

[Bouncy Ball]

389. Go ahead and show me how she can re-grow all four lobes

of her cerebral cortex, then.

And answer the question: why, in fifteen years, hasn't she done so if it's possible?

Everything I've seen says you have to HAVE a cerebral cortex to grow ANY cerebral cortex cells. She HAS no cerebral cortex. So how is she going to pull off that miracle of miracles?

[Misunderestimator]

391. How about cryogenics then? Regenerative tissue research is SO FAR AWAY

from being a reality for ANYONE, much less someone as far gone as Terri, to benefit from in this lifetime.

The research is definitely valuable, but it has nothing to do with this case.

[Misunderestimator]

376. Just so you know, cause I ain't interested in expending energy on this

myself... your posts in this thread have been extremely informative and have solidified my opinions even more... ;) Just fyi, so you know that your time isn't completely wasted, even if it is on the one you are trying to inform.

[Bouncy Ball]

388. Thanks, doll.

I do appreciate that. I feel like I'm trying to explain basic biological facts to a brick wall here.

[mcscajun]

68. Please! Remove That Horrifying Image!

You didn't place a link -- you placed the picture.

Omigod! I may have nightmares for a week!


:shudder:

[Malva Zebrina]

82. You were suitably warned in the most definitive manner possible

that you choose to click on is not my fault and I will not remove the image.

[mcscajun]

95. You're not getting me. You didn't post an image link to click on

you posted the Actual image.

your warning was useless. Please learn how to post a link in future.

The edit period had already expired by the time I asked you to remove it; I just didn't notice.

[Malva Zebrina]

103. I know how to make a link

but you were suitably warned.'

Many people post actual JPG's rather than links here on DU.

I am not required to post a link rather than a pic, and you were warned, explicitly that if you are squeamish, not to click on to the post.

You took it upon yourself to click on. Not my fault.

[mcscajun]

107. Those of us who are using View All (and that's a lot of us)

SCROLL through the posts. We don't Click on 'em, one at a time.

Which is what I was doing. Your warning is useless.

an Image Link instead of a pic would have been FAR more considerate.

That's all I'm saying.

[Malva Zebrina]

112. Sorry

I could not have been more clear as to what was to follow.

You choose to click on after the very clear warning not to click on if you are at all squeamish.

It is a reality and maybe more people need to see that, especially the pro-life people who are pontificating somewhere up in the clouds.

The picture exhibits clearly the absurdity of keeping a woman alive who has no brain to speak of.

[mcscajun]

123. Like I'm telling you: We Don't ALL Click.

I don't need to see THAT kind of reality.

I'm not Pro-Life.

I know the Terri Schiavo Case is painful and absurd.

And I'm still Ill.

[Ladyhawk]

311. The picture is in your post.

It is not a clickable link, it is a picture, at least when viewed from my computer with its configuration.

I won't have nightmares for weeks or anything, but I thought you should know that the picture shows in your post. It is not a link.

[janx]

291. No, that's reality. You chose to look at it.

Period.

[mcscajun]

296. Um. How many times do I have to explain this?

I didn't Choose to Look at it -- it was forced upon me.

Scrolling isn't the same as clicking. I use View All, I use the Page Down button to scroll; so, the warning was useless, 'cause by the time I saw it, I was Also seeing the pic.

An Image Link rather than an image isn't Too Much to Ask, IMHO.

[traco]

154. I didn't click on it and yet I saw the picture

You put the picture in your post. Anybody reading the thread in View All mode will see that without having to click on a damn thing!

[Malva Zebrina]

177. Pictures are put into posts all the time here on DU

you were warned clearly. Those who contain a warning, do not always have a link to click on to.

It is not my fault you chose to click on.

[traco]

192. I did not click on anything except the thread!

I did not click on a link to see that aweful picture. If you say "Warning...." in your post, you should provide a link, not the picture that you are warning about.

[Malva Zebrina]

206. No, that is not quite right

I posted in great big caps a WARNING, not to click on

You decided to do so in spite of the loud warning.


Not my fault and you will not pin it on me.

Further, what do you find so repellant about that pic? It is reality in all of it's raw and ugly nature.
We live in a world like that where not all babies are cute little things and where all pregnancies do not result in perfection. You may at some point be glad you have seen it and are aware of the pitfalls and have been made aware, even though you may think it is horrific. I have seen it in real time. Yes, it is hardly someting that people want to see, however, this IS what happens.

If you cannot stand it then I certainly hope you never ever call yourself pro-life without knowing what you are dealing with.

[crispini]

229. Hey, people who are using "view all"

to read the threads don't HAVE to click. How many times do people have to explain this to you? All I did is scroll down and I saw your image, which I did not appreciate your posting. I did not CHOOSE to click on your post. I scrolled down the thread.

[Malva Zebrina]

240. I have no idea what view all is and how you are navigating

Apparently there is some differences in the way we navigate.

Perhaps you should not view all if you wish to avoid the JPEGS that may be offensive to you.

What was so offensive to you in that picture anyhow?

[crispini]

245. At the end of the thread title, there's a link called "view all"

See it? when you click that link you get the ENTIRE thread loaded at once, not just messages one by one. Many people view DU this way, not just me. So now you're asking not just me but many other people to change the way they surf DU so they might avoid horrible images? That's ridiculous! I have been posting on DU a long time, and most people avoid POSTING awful stuff because they don't want to shove it in other people's faces; you could post a link to the WEB PAGE the image is on -- the .html -- and you would not have this problem.

I don't find the *image* offensive, I find it gross, and I would not have chosen to click on the link and view it if I had been given the option.

What I find offensive is that you have been repeatedly asked by several people in this thread to edit your post and remove the image and you have not done so. Yet you posted that big WARNING on the image so you are obviously aware that some people may be disturbed by it. So why do you continue to insist on shoving it in people's faces like this? :shrug:

[Malva Zebrina]

251. Because I once posted a picture that was similar and was

instructed by the mods to post a warning or it would be deleted. So that is what I did this time around.

and what is so gross about the picture? Everything in life is not beautiful. If we are to be compassionate, surely we must be aware of the ugliness and the pain that occurs to some in their lifetime much as it causes revulsion in those who have never ever had to face it in it's raw reality.

Why is it so hard to look at? Why is it so hard to face that these things occur in real time with real people involved with real hard decisions to be made?

[crispini]

258. Yeah, well, I don't watch "Operation" on TV either,

the issue here is MY CHOICE about whether or not to look at such graphic images, which you effectively removed. I consider it along the lines of the anti-choice people who post those bloody abortion pics: rude, offensive, and un-necessary. They (as you) may have had a point, but the point gets lost because of the behaviour.

[Malva Zebrina]

268. Sorry

but sooner or later, whatever your beliefs, you may at some point need to face the grim reality whether you like it or not or you may just decide to go on and be ignorant of reality.

That facing of the grim reality is necessary component of developing compassion, imo.

I did not attempt to force you to face reality but thought I was in compliance with the rules when I posted the picture. Never did I do it in order to force someone or to force the removal of someone's "choice".


You can go on denying the ugliness that is happenstance through some accident in our human existance, by ignoring the elephant in the living room, but those of us who have had first hand experience with those rather "gross" developments, and have developed some compassion because of that unique exposure, may be the ones to carry the banner.

That's OK. I do understand. Many people cannot stand the sight of blood and faint at the sight of it also.

I don't watch operation on TV either, even though I worked in an operating room for five years.

[FourStarDemocrat]

481. Ridiculous..

The way you're justifying your action by projecting shortcomings such as "you've got to get over living in denial' onto other members here, whom you have no idea about how they stand on the issue. It would be better to just say that you made a mistake.

[Ladyhawk]

313. I always use "View All"

By the time I saw the warning, I saw the picture, too. It's in the post. I'm not upset by such things, but the picture was not a link, it was a PICTURE.

It would be a good idea to simply post the URL where you found it rather than the picture itself.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

406. Jesus Christ!

This sub-thread is the most awe-inspiringly ridiculous exchange of human communication I have seen in some time!

[datasuspect]

417. yep

agree . . .

[Ladyhawk]

469. I'm glad I could amuse you. :) n/t

[Ladyhawk]

308. "religious convictions"

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."-- Blaise Pascal

Where religion and science differ, I tend to agree with science. At least science can be quantified. Religion asks that we believe with no proof.

"Faith is not the result of fuzzy thinking; it is the cause of it." - Dan Barker. I see the results of such thinking in this thread and quite frankly, it frightens me. I don't want religionists in charge of my medical care. :scared:

[Valerie5555]

329. Egads that picture could be the poster child for a late term abortion and

the need for same if you ask me.

[DesEtoiles]

17. I don't want strangers insinuating themsevles into my family's private

choices

I would be enraged if some third party tried to overrule family decisions we make that are private and legal.

[Warren Stupidity]

357. exactly.

This is such bullshit. Let the poor woman die already.

[dogman]

19. They were to do brain scans to determine the level of damage

the last I had heard. I just feel that when they determine to cut off feeding that they assure her passing is painless. My father died of cancer and they gave him a cocktail of drugs to make his passing gentle. i think that is appropriate. The biggest problem I see is that people who would make the choice to end their life are usually deterriorated beyond the ability to make that decision. It should be easier for people to set the terms of their demise.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1301830&mesg_id=1302039&page=

Spinal fluid instead of brain.

[dogman]

165. Sedation seems logical.

Let her go in peace.

[Warren Stupidity]

215. there is no 'her' there to sedate.

[Warpy]

21. Ever go on a fast?

I've fasted for 10 days at a time, and there is no discomfort after a few hunger pangs and a headache the first 48 hours. Have you ever been in a hospital and allowed nothing by mouth for an extended period? That discomfort is far worse than fasting. Your tongue and lips dry and crack, even if you're being hydrated with IV fluids. Your throat gets raw. It is horrible, and Schiavo has been like that for 15 years.

Ms. Schiavo won't even feel the mild discomfort of that first 48 hours of fasting, not even if she's capable of feeling any discomfort, because she will be getting hospice care, and they err on the side of sedation and comfort.

You're projecting your own feelings onto this poor shell of a woman. She has been incapable of being truly alive for 15 years. Her body is contracted and her muscles are atrophied. If a miracle occurred and she awoke fully with all her faculties intact, it would be into a body so seriously damaged over the past 15 years that she would never be able to function independently again. Her husband is finally ready to let her go. His wishes should be respected.

[Riding this Donkey]

27. Go look at the what happens to the body with dehydration, that is

what she will really die of, her insides will shrivel up like raisins.

Her skin will crack and blister open.

Educate yourself on dehydration.

[Bouncy Ball]

53. Did you even read what she wrote?

Terri will NOT be dying in pain.

[Riding this Donkey]

57. How do you know that, but let's say you are right, do you

really believe dying by dehydration is dying with dignity.

[Bouncy Ball]

62. ....

She has nothing. "Terri" is gone. Most of her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid. I know she won't be in pain, because the PART OF HER BRAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR PERCEIVING PAIN IS GONE. Sorry for yelling, but it's GONE. ABSENT. Not just damaged, but NOT THERE. It's not even a case of brain damaged, it's a case of brain-not-there.

I don't know how many other ways to tell you this. It's not there. Imagine having about 20-30% of your brain left. And the only part you do have is the most primitive part.

You still haven't answered the question as to whether you would insert a feeding tube into the gastric system of a baby born without a cerebral cortex?

[Riding this Donkey]

64. No I wouldn't put one in if the parents didn't want it. I could see why

and I am not against that, as I have said a million times I am not agains dying with dignity and the right to control our own bodies in death.

There is more to this story than Terri's "selfish parents"

[Bouncy Ball]

67. I am not even talking about her parents.

Stop trying to make this about her parents, focus on HER.

If YOU were the child's parent, would YOU agree to a feeding tube in the absence of a cerebral cortex?

Of course you wouldn't. Because you know the cerebral cortex is responsible for SO much and that child would never move, speak, feel emotions, perceive any sensual stimuli, have a personality, NOTHING. What kind of life is that?

Same question about Terri.

[Riding this Donkey]

73. Are you asking if I was the parent of that baby?

[Bouncy Ball]

Yes. It is a VERY parallel case. The only difference is age.

Would you insist on a feeding tube for that baby? If you did, the baby would continue to "live" (if you can call it living), but that's it. Forever. Until death of old age. No real life at all. No chance of getting better. You can't grow a brain back.

That's the situation for Terri. Now, would you have a feeding tube put in for that baby if it were yours?

[Riding this Donkey]

85. I don't know. I just don't know, I am sure I would love that baby

and it would be a hard decision. I would carefully consider both. I really don't know.

[Bouncy Ball]

88. WOW. You would actually CONSIDER inserting a feeding tube

into that baby's gastric system? Even with the complete absence of a cerebral cortex?

I am going to assume that you don't know very much about the cerebral cortex, despite everything I've told you in this thread, despite all the information out there on the functions of the cerebral cortex. It's a HUGE part of the brain. My only other option is to assume you are downright cruel.

And I don't want to assume that. I've never shaken my head so hard over a thread on DU. I find it sad and disturbing that anyone would even consider a feeding tube for someone like that. Terri's brain situation is the same. She's gone. Long gone. Many years gone. And no chance of coming back.

Wow.

[Riding this Donkey]

99. You asked if that was my child it would

take some consideration yes. That is what I said. What is wrong with that.

It is hard to put yourself in that position with someone you love so much. I do not believe terri is hopeless.

Do you think you would have no feelings whatsoever if that was your child and you had to make that decision. You could make it just like that, without even considering everything.

I thought you would be happy that my post left room that I would consider taking it out.

[Bouncy Ball]

109. I am again shaking my head here.

Please, for the love of GOD, if you refuse to read what I have posted here about the cerebral cortex, at least go google it and read for yourself.

With NO cerebral cortex, you ARE a hopeless case. Sorry. I didn't create the brain.

And yes, if more than one doctor told me that my baby had no cerebral cortex, but if we inserted a feeding tube, they'd "live" but no chance of anything else, I'd say no, no feeding tube. That's MEAN. Why? What would be the point? To make ME feel better??? To create some kind of sci-fi horror movie? So that child's soul would get no rest, no peace?

Please, I am BEGGING you to read about the cerebral cortex. If there were any chance of her recovering, I'd be more swayed by your side of this issue. But I know what the CC is responsible for. And I know hers is gone. Not damaged. GONE. There is NO HOPE.

[Ladyhawk]

314. I think some people believe in a "soul" that is separate from the body.

Perhaps that's where the misunderstanding is coming from. I think it's a load of hooey, but perhaps they are unwilling to look at your scientific information because they believe in this unidentifiable "soul" that lives despite the body's condition.

Is this where the disagreement lies? If so, we'd better all just agree to disagree. I'm never going to believe in a soul.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. It would have to be one heck of a miracle

The woman has no cerebral cortex left.
See here : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1301830&mesg_id=1302039&page=

She has no self awareness to feel anything. That is the point. The mass-delusion on this issue is appalling.


For all of you horrified at the thought of removing her feeding tube, I just have one question: do you have a right to die?

[cornermouse]

28. Is there any dignity in the way she's living now?

She can't move or speak. I suspect she can't even sit in a chair on her own. There don't appear to be any indications that she is able to think. And since she is being artificially fed, how many other catheters (urine, etc.) do you think she has that you can't see?

To me, this looks more like existence than life.

I feel sorry for her family, I really do, but they need to let her go.

[demnan]

32. I'm with you, friend

I saw pictures of her and she responds to voices and such. She's brain damaged but not brain dead. The husband hasn't been an angel, he's withheld treatment that money was raised to provide. If she were my daughter, I couldn't let her go either.

[Bouncy Ball]

59. Well that's cruel, then.

You saw a video the parents put together which was incredibly misleading, at best.

With no cerebral cortex, her body can only carry out the most primitive of processes. Terri is not in there. What makes us "us" is gone in her. No personality center, no vision or sense center, no language center, no higher processing of any kind of stimuli, no chance of her feeling emotion, no being able to move.

I'm sorry you were mislead by pictures and video, but it's quite cruel to keep someone alive who is in her state. She has spinal fluid for most of her brain.

Just shaking my head over here......

[ultraist]

282. Why is it cruel if she can't feel a thing and has no awareness?

It's not cruel to her, if her brain is mush, she doesn't know the difference. Unless, you have some religious reason as to why it's cruel.

[proud2BlibKansan]

247. HER BRAIN IS MUSH

She is NOT responding voluntarily. She CANNOT will herself to respond.

[Wonk]

45. More than forty replies in under twenty minutes. Impressive.

You're right, keep her alive as long as technologically possible, as she's still capable of pumping out kids, anyway. Onward Christian Soldiers™!!!

(just kidding about the force her to stay alive and be a baby factory part, in case that wasn't obvious)

edit: changed thirty to forty

[Malva Zebrina]

233. and what would those say if her husband decided to sleep

with her and impregnate her and she became pregnant? Yippeee--a child is born!

I say let him exercise his conjugal rights and enjoy her body, dead as it is, for the sake of letting her perform her duty as a woman and bear his child. The parents would then be grandparents, the grandparents they always hoped to be.

I hope you realize that I am being sarcastic.

If her husband did sleep with her enjoyed her non responsive body to his pleasure,for hours on end, would he be accused of rape?

[shraby]

250. It would be more like necrophilia.

[Malva Zebrina]

256. But at least a baby would be born! eom

[LisaL]

322. Yes, I believe he would have been accused of rape.

She can not consent to having sex. Unless you think wife always consents to having sex with her husband?

[jedr]

51. the oblivious answer is for her husband to divorce her, and go on

with his life ,and let her under the care of her parents. But if I have this right the parents can't afford the health insurance and she has to fall under his plan; thus no divorce...if I'm wrong please jump in and correct me

[Riding this Donkey]

56. They have told him he will have no financial responsibility for her

at all.

They will take care of everything.

[Bouncy Ball]

65. Yeah they'll "take care" of everything.

In court documents, they have testified to all of the following questions with emphatic "yes-es:"

1. Would you agree to let Terri have open heart sugery if she needed it?

2. Would you agree to let Terri have a limb amputated if she needed it?

3. Would you agree to let Terri have all four limbs amputated if she needed it?

Yes, to all of them.

So they would keep that feeding tube in her, and in the worst case, allow her to become a torso in a bed. Just so they can feel better.

That's horrific.

[cornermouse]

70. And yet he refuses to just walk away.

Why? Because he is overcome with a urge to watch her die? Because he had a overwhelming need to allow her parents to put him through all of this?

Maybe its because he really did love her and he really is following her wishes?

[Bouncy Ball]

This is a man who cleaned her up when

she had her period every single month. That is NOT a person who doesn't care.

I agree with you. He's turned down offers as large as $10 million to just "walk away." And he hasn't.

Good for him.

[LisaL]

147. Maybe somebody should give him a medal?

[Bouncy Ball]

274. Maybe you should separate your obviously hateful feelings about

men from this issue.

[Riding this Donkey]

77. Nope anyone who loves someone as much as he allegedly does

has a little more respect for his wife's parents.

Sorry! Something is wrong with him and I have read it all, I just don't feel like typing a diary about it.

I am sure you all have heard it too, whether you see some truth to it is a different matter altogher though. And that is your perogative.

[Bouncy Ball]

80. WHAT????

Look, my husband's love for ME has nothing to do with his feelings for my parents.

When you get married, that person becomes your LIFE PARTNER. Responsible for you, especially in the case of incapacity.

I have a problem with just blowing off my spouse's responsibility to me. And that's what you are doing with her.

I wonder what your real motivation is here. Pretty cruel to want to keep a shell of a person alive who has nothing but a bit of a primitive brain left.

[Riding this Donkey]

116. Why are you calling me cruel. Can't you have a conversation with

someone who has a differing opinion without calling names?

[Bouncy Ball]

133. Ok. That ACTION would be cruel.

Very cruel. And you are avoiding the subject.

[Riding this Donkey]

145. What if your husband showed absolutely no respect for your

parents feelings, while you are living.

That wouldn't cause one single problem?

[mondo joe]

157. That would depend on the relationship with the parents

If I had Terri's parents I'd expect my spouse to disrespect them.

[Bouncy Ball]

158. Apples to Cadillacs.

Apples to Cadillacs. Apples to Cadillacs.

Why do you refuse to admit with no cerebral cortex there is no Terri left?

This is about TERRI. Or, well, what's left of Terri.

[cornermouse]

146. Why did you, yourself use past tense when

referring to Terri earlier in the thread? I found that quite interesting.

My grandparents made a point of telling my mother, us grandchildren, anyone who would listen that they didn't want to be "hooked up". They knew where they were going and when the time came, they didn't want anyone to try to stop them. (Maybe the religious right also knows where they're going. It would certainly explain their frenzy to force life when there is none.)

Several years later, I watched my grandmother slowly fade away. At one point, BECAUSE of the religious controversy over Quinlan, my mother started to think that maybe she should just ignore my grandmother's wishes. I find Randall Terry's insertion of himself into this quite troubling. Someone's pulling the parent's strings.

[LisaL]

174. Life partner? Haven't you heard-50% or so of all marriages

end in divorce. Very few people divorce their parents.

[Bouncy Ball]

179. I have no relationship whatsoever with my parents.

Want to know why? My mother is mentally ill and incredibly violent (I have a young daughter and really don't want her around someone like that) and my father is a raging alcoholic who gets drunker than Cooter Brown on a daily basis and has for 30 years now.

My husband is an emotionally and mentally healthy person.

Let's see, who do I want making decisions about me in the case of most of my brain missing?

Hmmmm, that's a tough one. :eyes:

Besides that, you and the other one on this thread love to make this about demonizing the husband. I don't know what your issues are with men (bitter divorce, maybe? A belief that all men are assholes?), but this is about TERRI.

Just keep ignoring the medical facts if that makes you feel better.

[mondo joe]

184. Divorce ends the contract. Terri didn't.

By your rationale no one should ever have any say in their spouse's health decision because they might have ended in divorce.

[mondo joe]

155. I think you forgot that people grow up

Parents aren't the be all and end all.

Some people don't even like their parents.

[tammywammy]

315. I agree

I know people who get along wonderfully with their parents and others that don't.

I've read a lot about Terri Schiavo, and I think the one thing that most people don't bring up is, maybe Terri never said anything to her parents about never wanting life support (and I do agree that a feeding tube is life support), is that she knew they wouldn't understand. Maybe she knew that it would cause a huge family fight, and she never felt compelled to bring it up to her parents.

BTW long time lurker, first time poster.

[mondo joe]

325. Her parents didn't know they were getting fertility treatments

so it's not hard to believe they didn't have the closest relationship.

Welcome to posting, Tammy!

[tammywammy]

328. Thanks for the welcome!

And I also read that about the fertility treatments in the guardian report (I believe, but I could easily be mistaken). So, no I don't think that they were close. I mean, if her parents didn't know about the fertility treatments, then it's easy to think that she never would have told them her thoughts about life support.

[SW FL Dem]

297. Right now, the taxpayers of Florida are paying for her care

while the parents are asking for donations to pay their legal bills. The saddest thing is that Terri (or what is left of Terri) has become a pawn in an emotionally charged legal battle.


Edited for typos and punctuation.

[Floogeldy]

54. Way to word a loaded question

Do you think babies in wombs should be sucked out and dismembered?

[Riding this Donkey]

60. That is what happens. I believe in a woman's right to choose if that is

your real question?

Do you see the way some talk about her parents moral character and you are worried about the way I talk factually about dehydration??

[Lone Pawn]

83. You don't just 'talk factually.'

You talk factually about this case in the same way that anti-choice wingnuts talk 'factually' about the horrors of killing babies, and 'factually' show grisly photos of 'partial-birth' abortions.

You're 'factually' appealing directly to emotion and really ignoring the most important facts--Terri cannot think, Terri cannot feel, Terri will never recover. That renders all of your facts moot.

[Riding this Donkey]

111. You are very wrong about me Lone Pawn

I knew it would be only a matter of time before people started insinuating that I was a troll or freep.

The only thing I can say is read my posts you will get a feeling for who the real me is and that it is definitely not a freep.

I just happen to have a differing opinion on this issue.

[loro mi dicevano]

63. Regardless of my opinion, I object to flamebait like

"starved and dehydrated to death." Come on. You want honest opinions, don't present your views in a ridiculously confrontational manner.

[Riding this Donkey]

69. I am not flame baiting, have you read and seen the headers

of the other Terri threads. I answered a lot in one of them, but have kept quiet until tonite. Something about Terri's lying blah blah blah parents and others.

And mine is flamebait.

This is what is going to happen to her like it or not.

[Lone Pawn]

76. So you object to flamebait others post...

...and so you post flamebait?

Yes, she'll die of dehydration. But she won't feel a thing. She can't feel a thing. She isn't feeling a thing. She's gone.

[LisaL]

84. Spoken like someone who would know from a personal experience,

I am sure.

[Lone Pawn]

91. Spoken like someone who knows more than a few things about neuroscience.

Saying "Terri might still be able to feel" is like pointing to a computer someone's pulled the processor out of and saying "it might still be able to work! You don't know!"

[Bouncy Ball]

97. EXACTLY.

Or like unplugging a refridgerator and expecting that, any day now, it's gonna just start keeping things cold again!

It's absolutely CRAZY. Furthermore, this is also like someone pointing out the unplugged appliance and saying "Um, it's never going to work, it's unplugged" and people saying "BUT IT MIGHT!!!"

[Bouncy Ball]

93. LOL, it's not ABOUT personal experience.

It's about FACTS.

Why are a few people on DU so against medical information and facts???

It just baffles me. This intentional refusal to look at cold, hard medical FACTS. It is fact that she has no cerebral cortex. It is fact that without it, you cannot perceive any stimuli (you can't do a lot of things, but we'll just stick to this). Without perceiving stimuli (pain is a stimuli) you cannot be in pain.

He's not speaking from personal experience, he's speaking from FACTS.

[LisaL]

119. Really? Facts? And these facts are known

because people without cerebral cortex can report what they feel or don't feel?

[Bouncy Ball]

138. Um, yes, believe it or not, in the years of human beings

researching the human brain, doctors and medical researchers and neurologists have discovered (amazing, I know!) what each and every part of the brain controls!

Isn't that cool? And the world is round, too!

And so they know what the CC is responsible for. In it's absence, those things cannot happen.

It'd be different if we were simply talking about a damaged CC. Then it'd be kind of up in the air what she could and could not do.

But with NONE? Do you understand it's GONE? What is this willful ignorance of the facts about?

Do you know why the sky is blue? Or how fuel-injected engines work? Did you know that some people do know those things and they put them into books, which you can read to find out?

[loro mi dicevano]

81. Yes, yes it is flamebait.

I have seen the other threads, too. I object to them as well - but you've touched on an issue WAY too personal for comfort, with wording that is nothing BUT flamebait. My family "starved and dehydrated" my grandmother, too. Was it the right thing to do? Yes, absolutely, no question about it. Was she "functioning"? Yes. Was she living a full life? No. Is Terri? No. Would either of them EVER live a full life if kept alive? Once again, no.

[Baconfoot]

74. Welcome to DU. n/t

[loro mi dicevano]

78. Well, actually, just switched accounts - but thanks. :P

[Lone Pawn]

75. Don't try to start flamewars.

That said, Terri is not alive. She doesn't have any higher-order functions. She simply does not think and does not feel. She's a shell, and she's been dead for 15 years. She's not there. Nothing. She feels less than an insect does. Everything that gives a human its intelligence, its soul, its emotion, its feeling, its thought--all of that does not exist in her any more.

But that's not the point.

The point is that you admit that this is a controversial issue, but then you word this in the most confrontational, raw-emotional way possible. You're trying to start a flamewar, I'm certain.

[topsfieldgal]

96. Link, please

"It dissolved and has been replaced by spinal fluid.

Which means all her body can do are primitive, involuntary things.

That's it. Her heart beats, she breathes.

She cannot perceive things visually, she cannot speak, she cannot feel emotion, she cannot move, she can't do anything other than involuntary stuff.

That's no life. And cerebral cortexes do NOT grow back."

Can you provide a link?

[Lone Pawn]

106. I didn't post that.

I don't know what on Earth you're referring to. I believe Bouncy Ball posted that. But if you want basic information on anything, wikipedia's a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex

[Bouncy Ball]

113. Well try the link Lone Pawn provided.

Or try googling "Cerebral Cortex functions" or try cracking open ANY anatomy or medical text with information on the brain.

Do you know of a single case where a cerebral cortex grew BACK?

(I can't believe I'm even having to defend such simple statements of fact. Wow.)

Brain cells, once lost, are lost forever. They are, in fact, the only cells in our body which do NOT regenerate.

Common knowledge. I cannot believe the level of refusal to look at basic physiological FACTS.

[LisaL]

255. Again, wrong. Brain cells do regenerate.

"For the past several decades, scientists believed that brain cells were a finite resource; that unlike other cells in the body, those in the brain did not regenerate.

But psychology professor Elizabeth Gould recently proved such is not the case for the hippocampal formation of the brain in Old World monkeys, primates closely related to man. And Fred Gage at the Salk Institute in La Jolla has showed that adult humans also generate new neurons in their hippocampus. These discoveries, along with Gould's later findings about the relationship between learning and neuronal regeneration, could change the way scientists look at the brain."


http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/99/0405/brain.htm

[MissB]

267. I'm sure someone somewhere has pointed out to you

that the cerebral cortex hasn't been shown to regenerate yet.

[Bouncy Ball]

349. Read that link of hers.

It says that the cerebral cortex has been found, in monkeys (they think) to sometimes grow new cells.

But without a cerebral cortex, she cannot "grow new cells" even IF that were possible.

So this link she is providing doesn't address this case at all. You cannot re-grow 80% of your brain. Period. But there's some kind of huge case of cognitive dissonance going on with that poster.

[Riding this Donkey]

92. I don't know what people mean, by my post, three below mine is one

called Terri: Starving to death.

But because it is a different opinion than some, mine is flame bait,

I don't get it.

I don't want to flame. I just really wanted to know how many others in the community feel as I do. Truly!

[Lone Pawn]

94. I would advise instead posting something non-inflammatory like

"Is anyone else here opposed to letting Terri die?"
or
"Does anyone here also believe that Terri should be kept alive?"
or even
"Does anyone here also think that Terri still has a right to live?"

[Riding this Donkey]

104. I can change it, do you think I should. I really didn't mean to make

offense to anyone and I can see how some are offended. Especially those who have had to face this.

[Lone Pawn]

156. It's mostly like this:

it's a touchy issue, and an emotional one at that. Both side has its arguments, and appeals to different emotions. It's generally best, if you're not looking for a flamewar, to restrict yourself to the least offensive terms possible.

Say it's abortion. If you don't want to be combatitive, don't write "So is anyone here actually in favor of killing babies?" or "does anyone here want to strip women of their rights?"

With the War, if you're looking for civilized discussion, starting off with "Why do you support the terrorists?" or "Why do you support butchering Iraqi children?" is a really bad idea.

Same here. If you write about Terri in emotionally charged terms, you'll set people off.

[Riding this Donkey]

173. Point taken, but I think even if I had written as you suggest, I would

still be getting many of the same responses, they way they are written now.


I am a very reasonable person, I just happen to not agree with this one case. I have done a lot of research on my own and I have my own moral compass on this one case.

That does not make me a bad democrat, a bad liberal, a freeper or a troll.


I hope you can understand.

And really the end point is that it is true that she will die of dehydration and starvation. Nothing else. And her parents want to care for her. "If" she can't feel anything why not give her parents some comfort instead of berating them.

[Bouncy Ball]

181. Why do you want to ignore her wishes?

And why are you in such a hurry to push her husband aside?

As someone who is married, I am HIGHLY disturbed by this.

[Riding this Donkey]

185. HOw can you be 100% sure these are her wishes and don't give me

Court mumbo jumbo stuff again.

I am married too and have children.

Why are you in such a hurry to push terri out the door?

There are questions here and you know there are or you wouldn't be so unwilling to listen to others opinions and believe only yours are the true and right ones.

I respect your opinions as much as I may disagree with them.

You will not convince me ever that this is the right thing to do, no matter how hard you try.

I have done a lot of research on this. I feel for her parents (sorry) and there was no living will, none.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Riding this Donkey]

189. Don't call me a liar! it's beneath you, right?

[mondo joe]

195. I don't have to call you a liar. The lies are documented.

But tell me, how do you rationalize support of parents who ADMIT they'd defy Terri's wishes even if they KNEW she requested no life support?

[Riding this Donkey]

197. Put yourself in their position, you are in court and you are trying

to save your daughter.

The other attorney asks you that question. How are you going to answer. They answered that the only way they could.

Listen, I have been around the block, I know how words are twisted, how lawyers ask questions.

Read my earlier posts about what I think of the court system and how much I think it can be trusted.

If you have this much faith in the court, you must be pro death penalty, right?

[mondo joe]

200. But I would never be in their position.

I would never answer that way because I would never want to defy my daughter's wishes.

Now according to you, all court verdicts are invalid. That's a pretty interesting position.

[Riding this Donkey]

219. That is not what I said, and you know it, it's funny how you believe

in the court wholeheartedly in this situation, I am sure you must feel that way with all of the other court related issues that we face day in and day out.

[mondo joe]

220. I believe the preponderance of evidence rather than your psychic powers

And the fact that you'd support parents who ADMIT they would defy her wishes tells me all I all need to know.

[Riding this Donkey]

227. You can't win an argument without insults. That really says a lot!

[mondo joe]

228. If you have evidence, present it. So far, only magic intuition.

as soon as you have evidence you might have a case.

[mondo joe]

204. The fact that you have no problem with parents who admit they would defy

her wishes really tells me all I need to know about where you are on this matter.

[Riding this Donkey]

221. Oh and what could you have possible learned. about me. You don't listen

you just keep repeating and repeating the same diatribe over and over again, in all of your posts.

Get over it, your argument holds no water with me.

If you read my post, you would understand what I was saying, but because it doesn't fit in nicely with your view, you know where I stand. I don't think so.

[mondo joe]

222. When you come up with evidence beyond your magic intuition

let me know.

[Bouncy Ball]

201. Push Terri out the door?

How am I in a hurry to push her out the door?

What is her life? Seriously, tell me. What is her life?

She breathes. Her heart beats.

That's it. Involuntary responses from her primitive brain, the only part she has left. What kind of life is that?

She went "out the door" many, many years ago. They have been artificially keeping her alive all these years.

Please read this. It documents what all four lobes of the cc does. And it describes what you cannot do without them:

http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/brain.shtml

CEREBRAL CORTEX

Frontal Lobe: Most anterior, right under the forehead.

Functions:

How we know what we are doing within our environment
(Consciousness).
How we initiate activity in response to our environment.
Judgments we make about what occurs in our daily activities.
Controls our emotional response.
Controls our expressive language.
Assigns meaning to the words we choose.
Involves word associations.
Memory for habits and motor activities.

Parietal Lobe: near the back and top of the head.

Functions:

Location for visual attention.
Location for touch perception.
Goal directed voluntary movements.
Manipulation of objects.
Integration of different senses that allows for understanding a single concept.

Occipital Lobes: Most posterior, at the back of the head.

Functions:

Vision

Temporal Lobes: Side of head above ears.

Functions:

Hearing ability
Memory aquisition
Some visual perceptions
Categorization of objects.


Now, you mean to tell me, you would want a loved one to continue "living" without all that? The only thing left to the brain is this:

You can breathe, you can sweat, your heart beats, you have involuntary reflexes.

That. Is. It. No consciousness. No personality. No emotions. None of your five senses. No language or speech. No nothing else.

And no chance of getting it back, since brain tissue doesn't regenerate. If my husband, God forbid, were in this situation, and his parents actually tried to override me, his spouse, and tried to keep that feeding tube in him despite all that he lost and all that he would NEVER get back, I would fight them tooth and nail on it. Tooth and freaking nail. That is no life. Terri has no life.

[Andromeda]

331. Here's where I have to step in...

Terri's husband has moved on with his life. He has a live-in girlfriend and he has had two children by her. I hardly think anybody is trying "push aside" Terri's husband.

It's understandable that he would not choose to go through life alone and miserable but his concerns right now should be his present family.

Terri's parents are there with her all the time and they want to take care of her. They are doing it because Terri's their daughter, they love her and they actually BELIEVE she's locked in that shell of a body somewhere and they are hoping for a miracle. Right or wrong, parents aren't alway objective when it comes to their children.

Don't be so quick to assume that the parents have evil motives. THE PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPLOITING THIS TRAGEDY BECAUSE THEY SOMEHOW BELIEVE IT SUPPORTS THEIR CAUSE are the evil ones. They are the ones who have NO standing in this case and should not be allowed to manipulate anguished parents in this unforgiveable way.

I have a husband too and he's always there for me in a way my mother never was. He would naturally be the one who would decide any life or death decisions for me if I was unable to AND he knows where I stand because I have a living will.

[mondo joe]

183. Her parents wishes do not supercede HERS.

She had HER wishes known.

She CHOSE her husband as a legal guardian in the case that she in incapacitated (and HE had the court determine her wishes).

Her parents have no right to interfere, nor should they.

And asking about brain tissue regenerating proves that your "research" is faulty.

[Riding this Donkey]

188. She has "no cerebral cortex" remember how do you know these are her wishes

was there a living will?

Her parents say that she would want to be kept alive.

I believe them(parents), you believe him(husband).

No living will was given, who are we to believe.

[mondo joe]

193. She expressed her wishes pre-coma, and there are witnesses

And it's not that I believe the husband and you believe the parents.

I believe the data - the medical data, the findings of the guardian ad litum, the records of her husband's care.

You ignore everything you don't want to believe, and opt for the parents - the SAME parents who said they wouldn't remove life support even if they KNEW she requested it.

So tell me, how do you rationalize your support of parents who admit they'd defy her wishes?

[Riding this Donkey]

205. Read my post above for that answer. n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

209. She said those things pre-vegetative state, obviously

She couldn't say them AFTER.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

213. Maybe we should start saying she blinked the request in morse code

I'm pretty sure of it. :-(

[leesa]

98. This is an every day occurence in hospitals and nursing homes

It is an entirely natural way to die.

[Philosophy]

100. A lot of you are making an illogical point though

First you correctly note that because Terri does not have a cerebral cortex that she does not react to stimuli, she does not have feelings, and she has no hope of ever getting better. But then you say it is cruel to keep her alive like that against her wishes. Both of these statements cannot be true. If she doesn't have any awareness, then she doesn't have the capability of caring if she is kept alive or not.

She is already gone. Whether she lives or dies only makes a difference to the other people involved.

[Quixote1818]

199. True but would you keep a corps in your house for comfort?

When it comes down to it their is not much difference. Psychologists who have studies grief know the importance of closure. For healing to begin you have to have closure and with that Terri's parents are actually suffering more from the situation. Keeping her shell alive gives them purpose but it's a false purpose based on a belief that the shell is actually a person. Until they come to terms and realize she is gone they cant move on and heal.

The most important thing is Terri said she didn't want to be kept alive in such a state of mind. Her wishes should be respected.

[Warren Stupidity]

224. ok good enough

If you accept the reality: there is no Terri there, that this is just a hunk of meat, why exactly are we keeping it alive? To be more blunt about it: in that case what justification is there for the expense of 'treatment'?

My argument is with those who insist that somehow a horrible killing will occur, that the husband is benefiting from this, that Terri the person actually exists in the body being warehoused, that this body has feelings and emotions (she smiles), that something BAD is being done by the wicked Mr. Schiavo.

[janx]

464. It's not illogical at all, because it involves respect of who this

young woman once was and respect that her wishes, when she was still conscious, would be followed.

[Dookus]

108. No

but I'm beginning to think we should starve reactionaries who repeat every bullshit right-wing fundy lie this case has produced.

[Bouncy Ball]

114. Dookus

can I PM you?

[Dookus]

120. of course

m'dear.

[Stop_the_War]

115. she's already dead

[Bouncy Ball]

117. No.

The most primitive parts of her brain are the only parts left. Which means she still engages in involuntary behaviors such as breathing and heartbeat.

But all her voluntary behaviors are gone.

The feeding tube is the ONLY thing keeping her alive. But I use the word "alive" loosely, as she is a shell of a person. The CC is responsible for a hell of a lot in humans, and hers is gone.

Whooops! Stop the War edited and so now my post looks funny! Oh well.

[bettyellen]

121. right, leave it up to the "parents" who don't care what teri's wishes are!

only her husband and her sister, huh?
only a stomache tube, okaaay.
those are some awfully big onlys.

[mondo joe]

151. You mean: Who thinks people shouldn't have the right to self determine

Or Who think people should be eternal babies under the authority of their parents

[WoodrowFan]

152. apparently

apparently Terri isn't the only person without a brain anymore. sheesh. I haven'ty seen so many DUers quote emotional RW lies as truth since the Primary season.

[Bouncy Ball]

162. No SHIT.

On this thread alone, I have had to tell a few people that:

1. brain tissue does not regenerate

2. without the cerebral cortex you cannot perceive any stimuli, move, think, speak, etc.

These things are NOT facts in dispute. They are solidly established facts with years and years of research behind them. They are simply laws of NATURE.

I can't believe there are actually people running around who believe brain tissue can regenerate. Wow.

[mondo joe]

164. I wonder why some ASSUME the parents are good, right, etc

Haven't they ever known of any asshole parents?

Haven't they ever known anyone who would NOT want their parents making these decisions for them?

[Bouncy Ball]

167. Don't you know ALL parents are wonderful and only

have their children's welfare in mind?

Don't you know that all husbands are assholes and should be pushed aside if something happens to you?

Sheesh. It's fucking crazy. I'll tell you what, if anyone kept ME artificially alive for 15 years with no cerebral cortex, when they DID finally let me die, I'd HAUNT their asses for doing that. AND for trying to go against my husband.

[mondo joe]

170. I can only hope my partner would be as strong as Michael Schiavo

in this circumstance - not that my parents would ever do anything like Terri's are doing.

[Bouncy Ball]

175. Mine, too.

I was just talking to my husband about this. We have Living Wills and NO ONE better try to override them, either.

[LisaL]

196. Just have a living will if you are worried about that.

I kind of suspect most partners would not want to be tied to a severely disabled person, so, in all likelihood, you have nothing to worry about. But if it concerns you, have a living will so your wishes are in writing.

[mondo joe]

202. Evil parents like Terri's can challenge a living will too

You should know that.

[Riding this Donkey]

285. Evil parents????

[mondo joe]

293. Yes, evil. People who admit they would deny her request.

They've admitted they would deny her the removal of life support even if they KNEW it was what she requested.

[LisaL]

318. Sounds like someone has issues, no?

How do you feel about your parents?

[mondo joe]

324. My parents are great. And most aren't evil.

But Terri's are.

[Bouncy Ball]

214. Why would you say that?

About being "tied to a severely disabled person?"

Wow, that's a horrible thing to say. If I actually had a brain left, my husband would hope for my recovery.

But in Terri's case, there's no chance. And he wouldn't want to keep my barely alive corpse around for years and years AND I have a living will, thankyouverymuch.

If you'd like to be kept like Terri, then by all means, write it out. No thanks for me.

You sure have a dim view of men.

[mondo joe]

223. Sounds like someone has some issues, huh?

I'm glad I'm not living the lives of some of the FEED TERRI crowd.

Their arguments all seem to be based in evil husbands and evil courts.

[LisaL]

317. As opposed to what, evil parents? How do you feel about

your parents?

[mondo joe]

321. My parents are great. But I know Terri's aren't.

Many parents are wonderful. Some aren't.

We know Terri's aren't because they admit they would deny her request.

[Warren Stupidity]

225. me too - another hero in my book

[Riding this Donkey]

203. "I wonder why some ASSUME the husband is good, right, etc"

Haven't they ever known of any asshole husbands?

Haven't they ever known anyone who would NOT want their husbands making these decisions for them?

[mondo joe]

208. I'm not ASSUMING the husband is right. I'm going on the data.

You're the one ASSUMING they're right, and ASSUMING everything you don't like is wrong.

And the fact that the parents ADMIT they'd defy her wishes confirms all of that.

[Riding this Donkey]

211. Yeah and you ignore the parents data, their specialists.

Just because a court makes a ruling, does not make it right. How hard is that to understand.

[mondo joe]

216. To the contrary, I reviewed the records

Michael Schiavo brought in expert witnesses and the court added to that.

Terri's parents brought in people with anecdotal evidence - not real medicine.

[Bouncy Ball]

218. You're the one ignoring laws of nature here.

:eyes:

[Riding this Donkey]

226. There are views that are different out there on this topic, have you read

those.

Why do you choose his side. Because you believe it, that's why.

Why do I choose the other side, because I believe it, that's why.

It does not make one better than the other.

We have differing opinions.

[mondo joe]

230. Again, you base your position on belief rather than evidence

You have zero evidence.

Just a feeling.

[Bouncy Ball]

231. There are certain facts you CANNOT change no matter

how much you want to. Have you seen Terri's brain scans showing MOST of her brain missing?

There is a link posted right on this thread to them.

Do you deny that brain tissue cannot be regenerated?

Do you deny that without a cerebral cortex, you can do nothing more than primitive involuntary things?

Those are simple, medical FACTS. They are NOT in dispute. Where are any doctors saying brain tissue can regenerate? Where are any doctors saying you can recover from losing your entire cerebral cortex? Where? Post me some links to these kooks. Because the entire medical community AND the laws of nature/physiology/anatomy completely contradict them, IF they even exist (these doctors).

So if you think she can recover, if you think she can speak and be conscious and all kinds of neat stuff without a cerebral cortex, post some links for proof that one can regenerate brain cells or function without a cc!

It's like debating whether the earth is round or not!

[proud2BlibKansan]

248. You are ignoring basic science

Read the case file. Then read a biology textbook. Key in on the chapters discussing the human brain.

[LisaL]

259. And you don't know what basic science is.

http://www.brainlightning.com/regen.html

[Bouncy Ball]

265. LOL!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!

So you found a company that SELLS nutritional supplements that are supposed to increase your brain power and they have an article that says that you can grow brain cells and you think they are unbiased?

By the way, I read the article you linked to. It says NOTHING about RE-GENERATING LOST brain tissue. They think the cerebral cortex can CREATE new brain cells.

Terri HAS NO CEREBRAL CORTEX.

So even if they are right, which I seriously doubt (new products! Nutritional supplements!), where is she supposed to get these new cells from, in absence of a cerebral cortex to begin with?

Basic science, you are cracking me up over here. Hint: if the website is selling stuff, they PROBABLY aren't highly reliable as a scientific source. LOL.

[AZCat]

272. I know - crazy, isn't it?

I spent some time looking around to see if this was one of those multi-level marketing scams but there doesn't appear to be any info about it. The operators of the web site may have the best intentions (even if they can't spell) but that does not make their site an effective example of "good science".

[Bouncy Ball]

275. Yep. It makes their website a pusher of products.

Which means ANY "scientific" information on it should be taken with a HUGE shakerful of salt.

I guaran-damn-tee you she can't find anything legit that says there is solid research that a person can regrow their cerebral cortex.

[AZCat]

277. Nope, but that doesn't prevent...

those talking points being repeated over and over.

This is, unfortunately, an effective technique because regardless how weak the arguments might be, the other side will eventually tire of their Sisyphean task and only one side will be left chanting the same lines over and over.

They consider this winning.

I consider it a rhetorical version of the scorched-earth policy.

[Bouncy Ball]

343. I won't tire first, they will.

I promise it. ;-)

[LisaL]

289. Princeton is not good enough for you?

"Scientists Discover Addition of New Brain Cells in Highest Brain Area
Finding reverses long-held beliefs and has implications for designing therapies

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In a finding that eventually could lead to new methods for treating brain diseases and injuries, Princeton scientists have shown that new neurons are continually added to the cerebral cortex of adult monkeys. The discovery reverses a dogma nearly a century old and suggests entirely new ways of explaining how the mind accomplishes its basic functions, from problem solving to learning and memory.

Elizabeth Gould and Charles Gross report in the Oct. 15 issue of Science that the formation of new neurons or nerve cells -- neurogenesis -- takes place in several regions of the cerebral cortex that are crucial for cognitive and perceptual functions. The cerebral cortex is the most complex region of the brain and is responsible for highest-level decision making and for recognizing and learning about the world. The results strongly imply that the same process occurs in humans, because monkeys and humans have fundamentally similar brain structures."

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/99/q4/1014-brain.htm

[uhhuh]

326. Ummmmmm

I see what you're saying, but answer this:

What region of the brain is this article saying can generate new cells?

And a follow up:

What region is missing in Terri's brain?

[Bouncy Ball]

342. Exactly what I was going to say.

With no cerebral cortex, how is she supposed to regrow these cells????

I guess lizzy missed that part.

[LisaL]

355. Well, you should have read the article.

1) cerebral cortex
2) cerebral cortex

[Bouncy Ball]

390. Thank you for disproving your own point.

Even IF this one article is true, she would have to HAVE a cerebral cortex to grow new cerebral cortex cells.

And she doesn't.

Which means she can't.

[LisaL]

440. Ever heard of stem cell research?

[proud2BlibKansan]

270. How many people here at DU

are you going to argue with about this?

There is nothing left to 'regenerate' in what is left of Terri Schiavo's brain. It is mush.

[Bouncy Ball]

350. It's not even mush. It's spinal fluid. It's gone.

To say it's mush implies SOMETHING is there. And there's nothing, except the most primitive parts of her brain left.

[Walt Starr]

161. Life support is life support + she has no brain

She's dead, Jim. Let the body go, too.

Her parents are monsters.

[Toucano]

180. PULL THE MOTHER FUCKING TUBE!

It's her husband's decision to make. Period.

[Quixote1818]

186. Most psychologists would completely disagree with you

Terri is not a person she is a shell and keeping her around is like a crutch for her parents not much different than keeping a Dead body in the house for comfort trying to convince yourself that the dead body is alive and has a soul. Psychologists who have studied grief know the importance of closure so healing can begin. The longer her parents hang onto a lie they can't move on and heal and have their lives back. Terri being kept alive is bad for Terri and it's bad for her parents and the most important thing is Terri's wishes are NOT being met.

[SoCalDem]

190. Would they care for her in their home, at their expense?

Or would they then decide to let her go with dignity?

It's my understanding that she's been hospitalized since she "slipped away". There's money to be made from her. The hospital's making it..the lawyers are making it..the press is making it..

Do the family members want her "alive" to spite her husband? Maybe they hold him responsible for what happened to her, and this is their way of keeping him tied to her.

Who is the beneficiary of insurance on her life? It would seem to me that if there is such a policy, Jebbie will try to recoup state costs from it after she does die..

[Andromeda]

333. Those are good points,

and they have NOT been brought up by any of the posters here.

I think before people jump in with both feet and draw their lines in the sand on this issue, they should find out who is going to benefit financially from this.

We already know that there is (was) insurance money. Is there any more and is Michael Schiavo the beneficiary?

Michael's lawyers have made out like bandits.

One thing though, the parents don't want Michael tied to Terri. They tried to initiate divorce proceedings for Terri, which I don't believe they can do, but that just illustrates how much they want to get Michael out of Terri's life.

Maybe they DO hold him responsible for her condition. Is there anything to this? Court documents don't always tell the whole story.

[Lars39]

379. He has stated numerous times that there is not any

insurance policy.
Terri was bulemic. Terri's cardiac arrest was the result of electrolyte imbalance,
not enough potassium.

[ismnotwasm]

235. Yikes

What a way to put things. I worked in long term care as a nurse for eleven years. I took care of patients like Terri. With feeding tubes and long term care, usually comes suffering in the form of repeat pnemonias, bedsores, contractures, urinary tract infections, opportunistic yeast infections from treating repeat infections with antibiotics, and then the resistant infections set in. With no feeding tube, she would die of dehydration way, way before she would starve to death. The body fluids shift, and here lungs probaly would fill, making the respirations labored and fluid filled. We usually had folks like this on hospice, or comfort care, which meant morphine, ativan and scopalamine or atropine. One the dying process starts, it's a deeply moving, intense experiance for all involved, family, friends, and health care workers. For all here arguing, I entreat you, do some volunteer work in a nursing home. There are thousands of Terri's (and much sadder cases) hidden away across this nation. Long term care could use your loving concern, whether to hold a hand when someone is dying with dignaty, or sitting in a room with a "brain dead" patient, who may not know you're even there, but then again, may register your presense on some primative area of the brain, and be comforted. If nothing else there are many lonely family members, spouses and others forced to the edge of burn out and beyond, trying to hold on to hope, or let go of it. They, too are out there, needing support. Lots of good stuff to do.

[janx]

284. This is a very sensible and sweet message. n/t

[MelissaB]

236. I'll admit to not reading this entire thread and still say this.

I watched my mother die slowly from brain cancer and lose all of her motor skills, speech, etc. and finally slip into a coma. I say finally because I welcomed the coma in hopes that she wasn't suffering. After caring for her for weeks I realized that she was no longer with us. Nature finally took it's course and she died.

My husband now has instructions. He knows exactly what I want if I'm ever in this positon (terminal). If he can't/won't help me I know somebody who will.

Remove the fucking tubes. She is breathing, but not living. I can't believe somebody can witness this and not have the compassion to LET somebody die.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

241. In the meantime, 31.6% of the kids in Sierra Leone die of starvation

or hunger related causes.

Just to put some perspective on starvation.

[Fenris]

273. Wow that's not a loaded question.

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

432. But that is how she would die

I'll admit that I'm conflicted on this whole thing. I'm glad that I'm not the judge in this case.

[Catt03]

278. I wish, for the sake of common sense

that both the parents, husband, the governor and legislature of the State of Florida and the Vatican would shut up and go do something productive.

If the parents want to pay thousands of dollars a day to sit by her side...let them. For C***** sake, the husband is living with another woman and has two children with her. He needs to get on with his life. And the State of Florida....is there ANYTHING these control freaks don't get involved in? Jeesus!

All these people and state offices have spent enough public money on this issue. Enough!

[Auntie Bush]

290. Amen!

[janx]

292. But then where are HER rights? How do her wishes fit into this?

Is a woman's life just a political pawn?

[Catt03]

372. We don't know what her wishes are

The husband says one thing, the parents another. there was no living will.

I say leave her alone and STOP using her as a political pawn. As far as I am concerned, all these parties fighting over control of this woman's life or death is abuse.

Just leave her alone. If her parents want to take care of her, so be it.

[janx]

378. You have missed the point completely.

She's not something to be passed around. She expressed her wishes to her husband before her collapse. Florida law puts him in charge of taking care of that.

But Florida doesn't care about this brain-dead woman's wishes at all.

[Bouncy Ball]

344. So then, using your argument, why not just allow

them to remove the feeding tube?

Your argument can be used both directions.

[bush_is_wacko]

294. Would you want to live in her state?

I'm somewhat surprised she has lived as long as she has. Often times these feeding tubes cause spasm that are very painful and eventually life threatening. Fluids can also cause people in this condition to drown int the fluid that accumulates in their lungs. I faced this issue dead in the face several years ago and unlike this womans family, my family decided to let the person die peacefully at home in her own bed surrounded by her family and friends, who loved her very much. I think we made the right choice. I'm sorry her mother and father don't have enough faith to realize their daughter has a better place waiting for her. Death is a part of life. It happens every day.

[soothsayer]

303. Gads! WHo are we to judge! The poor should be put to death

because who would want to live like them, perhaps? Or the insane, or the physically handicapped, or people who have to live in cold climates?

I seem to recall that there's a video of her thrashing around violently as they are talking in front of her about pulling her plug.

[Bouncy Ball]

345. What? Pulling WHAT plug? SHe has a feeding tube!

And she CANNOT make any voluntary, organized movements becuase she is missing the part of her brain that tells the muscles how to DO that.

Also, she is completely missing the part of the brain responsible for emotions, so how would she get upset?

Also, she is missing the part of her brain responsible for auditory input, so how would she even HEAR what they are discussing?

Also, she is missing the part of her brain responsible for CONSCIOUSNESS, so how would she even be AWARE of anything enough to have an emotional response to it?

Do you see how silly it is to ascribe all those things (hearing, consciousness, emotions and voluntary movements) to someone who doesn't even have most of her brain?

[bush_is_wacko]

365. You mis-characterized what I said in a radical way.

First of all, I have euthanized dogs with far greater sympathy than this family seemingly has for this woman. Feeding tubes ARE painful. Dehydration is not. Nursing staff regularly swabs the inside of the mouth and the lips to make sure there are no painful sores or dry mouth. In my families case we often did this for my dying relative. We felt it was our duty to make her death comfortable. We also felt it was a more comfortable death than the deaths we had witnessed with those given fluids. They died of pneumonia BECAUSE they were given fluids! Pneumonia is one of the most common complications that arise as a result of being in a state of body failure from various illnesses and/or conditions like this woman is in. Their breathing was labored and we literally had to watch them drown!

The reality is this woman cannot swallow at all so they are already doing this for her and will continue to do so.

I believe this woman told her husband and the rest of her family she did not want to live this way. IF her husband did this to her, he can NOW be charged with her murder and investigated in that manner. I don't know whether he is guilty or not so I won't judge him along those lines.

This IS NOT murder! The act that put her in this state may have been.

I can assure you, having watched someone die this way (my relative didn't ultimately require a breathing tube, she would have lingered in this vegetative state for as long as her body let her if we had opted for that feeding tube, instead she died within a week of being brought home) I KNOW this is far less painful than being kept alive in this state!

I am no Kevorkian or some other doctor of death. I am a NORMAL American who has live through MANY a family members life and death. None of them were given overdoses or suicided for their benefit. They just went through the death process in a NATURAL and kind way!

I watched my relatives body convulse on an increasing basis for the several days she was in that hospital! The minute she was home in her own bed she stopped doing it! I hope this helps you understand the THRASHING you mention. It is a part of what the body does involuntarily in the death process. I do believe people in this state may have some "understanding." Maybe this woman is trying to tell them she wants to be let go?

You know it is funny how people view death. I have viewed a GREAT deal of it and much of it has been under circumstances where the person's life was cut way too short because of disease and/or tragedy.

Death IS a part of life! Even when someone is unconscious at the end of their life, they often have a moment of clarity just before they die, as I believe at least two members of my family did, including the one I am referring to now. I believe in her last moment of clarity she thanked her family. She could not speak, but her tears and her eyes said what I believe she could not say. Mind you, she had been unconscious for SEVERAL days by this point and she died within hours of this moment of clarity. The same goes for the other relative I mention. Even now, I can see her face and I believe that with all my heart!

We LOVED this woman. More than words can say. She was our matriarch and she was a brilliant one at that! She endured a great deal of tragedy in her life and SHE was the one that showed us how to let go and have faith!

Technology has made people think death is somehow unnatural! Guess what? It is the NATURAL end to every living thing on this earth!

[barackmyworld]

302. Keep in mind it's not "starving" in the sense we usually think of

People with that level of brain activity can not sense things like hunger or thirst.

Just heard a lecture by one of the doctors who came up with the standard rules for determining "death"

[justoneworld]

316. Im so torn on this issue

I feel deeply for her parents and there hopes that she may benefit from future medical breakthroughs, but if her wish to her husband was true than it should be honored.

[Name removed]

330. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cornermouse]

338. President Bill Clinton is both more practical and more

sensitive than that. There is no comparison between President Clinton and Jeb. That's a fact.

[superconnected]

340. as a liberal vegetarian pro choice woman

my opinion is, who really knows if she gave her husband the permission to pull the plug and since we don't know, just keep the tube until she dies on pnemonia(sp.) or wakes up. Yeah, you heard, wakes up. I hear she isn't brain dead yet. Until she's brain dead, treat her like a coma patient.

I'm not going to use my dislike for republicans(I think they want to save her for the wrong reasons) as my agenda to pull the plug.

I think the republicans should donate part of the national budget to coma research, if they're going to insist saving her like this, but they never put their money where their mouth is. I hope some day there will be a cure.

If she was actually brain dead, my opinion would be end it. And I mean _brain dead_, not retarded. Sounds like shes getting there, but hasn't reached _brain dead_ yet.

[JVS]

341. I agree with your opinion

[Bouncy Ball]

352. Brain dead???

I don't think you understand. She is MISSING most of her brain. MISSING. Gone. Not there. Spinal fluid has replaced it.

Do I need to repeat that? GONE.

How is she going to "recover" when most of her brain is missing? Read through this thread, especially my posts where I describe what the cerebral cortex is responsible for, to see why she will never wake up and why there is no hope of recovery for her.

(Cerebral cortex responsible for, among other things: consciousness/awareness, personality, emotions, vision, hearing, taste, touch, smell, speech/language, voluntary movement, etc.)

She's missing ALL of those things, her entire "higher order" "thinking" brain, and she's just gonna wake up someday?

I have some land to sell you.

[Warren Stupidity]

363. I basically give up on this

I do not understand why people, people here on DU, are so massively irrational on this subject. Don't they understand that they are likely to be in similar situations with their parents or other family members, or that they themselves may very well end up like Terri?

Jesus Christ, you all wouldn't treat your dog this way. You'd do the right thing for your pet. You would do it OUT OF LOVE.

[ultraist]

366. Cutting edge Regenerative tissue engineering/Stem cell research

Top notch institutions are working on regenerative tissue growth including Harvard and MIT:

http://www.cimit.org/tengineer.html

CIMIT's Tissue Engineering and Organ Fabrication Program is a major platform designed to meet two important needs in transplantation surgery and regenerative medicine -- helping to solve the problem of organ shortages and tissue defects and optimizing living replacement structures in the areas of tissue, cardiovascular, and neural repair.

MIT Engineers Report New Approach To Tissue Engineering
MIT engineers report a new approach to creating three-dimensional samples of human tissue that could push researchers closer to their ultimate goal: tissues for therapeutic applications and replacement organs. The technique could also help answer questions in cell and developmental biology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031014072010.htm

Body Building: Tissue Engineered Organs A Heartbeat Away (June 23, 1998) -- Researchers at the University of Toronto have initiated an international research project focused on creating a tissue-engineered heart, suitable for transplant within 10 ... > full story

University Of Missouri Physicist Creating Vascular Tissue; Could Lead To 'Natural' Human Organs (February 7, 2003) -- Gabor Forgacs' work with organ engineering is an excellent example of how current interdisciplinary research in the life sciences may have a profound impact on future generations. Forgacs, a ... > full story

Adult Stem Cells From Knee Fat Turned Into Cartilage, Bone, Fat Cells (February 11, 2002) -- Duke University Medical Center researchers have "reprogrammed" adult stem cells taken from a small deposit of fat behind the kneecap into functioning cartilage, bone or fat cells that could ... > full story

Patented Process Preserves Transplant Tissues/Organs (August 31, 2004) -- Body tissues such as blood vessels, cartilage and skin--even whole organs such as kidneys, livers and hearts--could become more widely available for transplants as a result of a patent issued ... > full story

[Lars39]

377. Surely you're not suggesting that an entire cerebral cortex

could be grown for her?
Even if such a thing would be possible,
the replacement would not be Terri Schiavo.
She stated that she would not want to "live" this way.
Are you now suggesting that her husband should sign away her body
against her wishes?
And what kind of precedent would that make in the court system?

[Bouncy Ball]

392. Exactly.

She cannot grow a new cerebral cortex (I'm not sure people here realize how MUCH of the brain is made up of the cc-and she is missing all four lobes!).

And even IF (and that's a huge if) the technology existed to SOMEDAY create some kind of brain transplant or grow tissue outside of her to be implanted:

a) how long would that take? Isn't she in her early 40s now?

b) who would she be? She wouldn't be Terri, as you said. She wouldn't know who the hell she was or where she was. Or what was going on. The cerebral cortex is responsible for memory, emotion, personality, everything that makes us "human."

She'd be like a Frankenstein's monster. Shudder. Even more reason for everyone to have a living will, so this NEVER HAPPENS TO YOU.

[superconnected]

471. no I didn't catch that half her brain was gone

and yes, I do consider that a major factor ;)

If half her brain is gone, why did they keep her alive in the first place...

[mondo joe]

476. Because that wasn't her original condition

Over time her brain atrophied and was gradulally replaced by spinal fluid.

[mondo joe]

353. Except there are witnesses who heard her say she didn't want

to be kept alive on life support.

[Warren Stupidity]

362. which fact the courts have

confirmed over and over and over again.

[Warren Stupidity]

360. Do so more research.

She has no cerebral cortex. Go find out what that means. You have been misled as to what the issues are here. There is no 'Terri' left to wake up. There is no self to be aware of anything or have emotions about anything. There is no possibility of improvement in her condition. One does not regrow a cerebral cortex. In fact her brain has gone the other direction over time, more and more of it has simply been lost, replaced with spinal fluid. What is left are the low-level brain functions that control reflexive activities. These are not opinions, these are simple medical facts that the courts have accepted over and over again in rejecting challenge after challenge after challenge from meddling right wing assholes exploiting this private matter between Mr. Schiavo, the guardian of his wife, and her health care providers.


What is at stake here iour right to die with dignity, to control our health services when it is time to make that last decision.

[ultraist]

367. Do more research on what they are working on

MIT, Harvard, and other reputable researchers are working on regenerative tissue and organ growth. Stem cell research is BIG.

If you think Science has halted and that this woman or future brain damaged individuals are doomed, you are not up on current research.

[Warren Stupidity]

368. She has no cerebral cortex

This is beyond anything that current science has even a hope of dealing with.

[ultraist]

370. See my post 366, they are working on growing entire organs

The brain is an organ. They ARE working on this. She is a perfect candidate to be a live subject for this research. Even if she doesn't live, any live subject makes a HUGE contribution to the knowledge base, which helps future patients. My dad participated in experimental therapy and a research project even though he knew it probably wouldn't save him. He wanted to help others.

There are BIG ground breaking discoveries being made in the area of stem cell research and regenerative tissue growth. One day, you will be able to grow an entire organ. It's very exciting research. Check out some of those articles I posted.

If she is so unaware, it's not cruel to keep her alive is it? Why not sign her up to help with research?

Now, the legal guardianship issue is a different matter. But if she were my loved one, I'd have her signed up at Harvard or MIT to be a subject.

[Warren Stupidity]

383. That is just stupid.

[Warren Stupidity]

425. Prove it. Post the link right here. (NT)

[Warren Stupidity]

369. oh, and

you are right. <sarcasm> Of course the state should be allowed to intervene in DNR cases if there is ongoing research that might conceivably in the future provide some small hope that an otherwise untreatable condition could be treated </sarcasm>

Yup here's your new brain Terri, have a nice day.

[ultraist]

371. She didn't sign a DNR. I didn't say the state should be able to interfere

Just as I don't believe the state should interfere with women's civil liberty, RIGHT TO PRIVACY, to control their bodies.

I'm pointing out that the dull statement, "she has no cerebral cortex" does not preclude her from participating in CURRENT, ongoing, cutting edge research that Harvard, MIT and a number of other highly reputable institutions are doing.

I think it's odd the husband did not pursue all options for her. Right after he recieved his 1M dollar settlement, he started pursuing pulling the plug. But then again, anyone who seems satisfied with warehousing their YOUNG loved one on Medicare in a hospice facility is probably not of the mind that medical research is important, not just for that patient, but for the knowledge base.

I have a different perspective on this, maybe due to the fact we have 7 doctors in our family and we always pursue the BEST medical care available for our loved ones.

[Lars39]

374. Terri didn't want to "live" this way, why do you think she

would want to guineau pig herself in this way? Her wishes preclude her from this. Michael did pursue therapy, but it was probably too late from the get go; doing without oxygen for about 5 minutes tends to have a negative effect on the brain.

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain
May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy
July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center
November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies
January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon
July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

[LisaL]

380. Well, sorry, when her husband took her to California

for an experimental treatment ( I believe electrodes were implanted in her brain) it was o'key? She would have been o'key with that? But now, with advancement of science, stem cell research, etc-she wouldn't be o'key with new treatments?
Why is that? What is the rush to kill her? Is she hurting anyone? Since she has no cerebral cortex, most of you claim she doesn't even feel anything. So, what's your hurry to have her dead?

[janx]

382. Rush to have her dead? Are you kidding?

December 1963… Terri's birth date

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain

May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy

July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center

November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies

January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon

July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together

January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal

March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home

May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube

February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed)

April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility

January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes

April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed

April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes

April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada

April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored

July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada

(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient

October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor

March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma

November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state

November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan

June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment

August 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

September 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional

October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case

October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is disconnected

October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube

October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request

October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube ; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored

October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law

November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee

November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself

December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor

December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified

April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee

May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds

June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court

July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional

October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech)

December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional

December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment

January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles

January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment

[Lars39]

385. You are still misrepresenting her condition.

Even if her entire cerebral cortex could be replaced,
it would not result in "Terri".

Why don't you want her wishes honored?

[LisaL]

427. Because I don't believe those were her wishes. I know

the testimony satisfied the court, but it was all hearsay. And it's not like anybody could contradict that Terri said it or didn't. Her friend testified that Terri felt "where there is life, there is hope". What if that really were her wishes?

[mondo joe]

429. So your psychic powers are more accurate than the findings

of the court?

Okay.

[Bouncy Ball]

393. Hurry to have her dead?

She's been dead, essentially, for fifteen years!

[mondo joe]

399. According to your argument no one could ever pull the plug on anyone

Because who knows what miracle is around the corner.

By your rationale no one could ever have a DNR or living will honored.

[Warren Stupidity]

384. JC

Do provide a link for the exciting new research that is regrowing cerebral cortexes in people who have lost all of theirs.

Terri can't participate in anything as 'Terri', a self aware entity, no longer exists. Terri's body might be able to involuntarily participate in this exciting new research, (as it is involuntarily participating in all events,) that it seems can regrow a cerebral cortex in a body that doesn't have one. Who would you suggest ought to be empowered to make that sort of decision for what is left of Terri?

I suggest that it is her recognized health care guardian, which would be Mr. Schiavo, and that his decision to participate or not in this bs you keep spouting about IS HIS BUSINESS, and that the State of Florida is interfering in his private affairs as the Schiavo case has become a cause celebre for rightwing foamers.

[ultraist]

412. I'm not denying the RW fundie whackos have glommed onto this case

I'm simply stating what I would do for a loved one that I had power of attorney over or legal guardianship of.

I wouldn't try only one experimental treatment as he did and stick them in a state funded hospice care center. Have you ever been in one of those horrible places? I have, doing volunteer work.
This is not to say Hospice is a bad org, on the contrary, they are fabulous, but those state funded nursing homes are another story.

[Warren Stupidity]

422. Either provide the link that backs up your claim

that Terri can receive experimental treatment that will regenerate her missing cerebral cortex or stop making this bogus claim. You are either making this up or completely misinterpreting something you have read. Go ahead, prove me wrong, post the link.

[janx]

426. Where are you getting this information?

Again, here is the timeline from abstractappeal.com:

December 1963… Terri's birth date

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain

May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy

July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center

November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies

January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon

July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together

January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal

March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home

May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube

February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed)

April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility

January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes

April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed

April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes

April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada

April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored

July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada

(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient

October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor

March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma

November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state

November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan

June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment

August 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision

September 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional

October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case

October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is disconnected

October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube

October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request

October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube ; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored

October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law

November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee

November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself

December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor

December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified

April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee

May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds

June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court

July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional

October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech)

December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional

December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment

January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles

January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment

[mondo joe]

430. THe court record shows Michael Schiavo gas taken extraordinarily good care

of Terri.

And the medical opinion presented was by not two but THREE specialists, one of which was appointed by the court.

[Warren Stupidity]

424. post the link for this 'cutting edge research' that

will regenerate Terri's missing cerebral cortex or stop making this bogus claim.

[ultraist]

434. I already posted a couple links on this thread

Look it up yourself. Regenerative tissue and organ growth, Stem cell research, Harvard, MIT, and other reputable places. Have you not heard that one day you will be able to grow a new organ? It's been in the works for years. It's even been reported in the MSM.

Not my problem if you have religious reasons for not wanting someone to participate in medical research.

Just be sure you tell whoever has power of attorney over you, that you don't want to help the knowledge base, thus future patients.

I think it's very odd that her husband only pursued one type of alternative treatment. That's my point.

[Warren Stupidity]

468. Actually no you didn't.

To be precise: you posted a couple of links about research in regenerative tissue engineering, neither of which state that they can, now or in the future, replace a cerebral cortex in a person who doesn't have one.

Here is your message:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3264357&mesg_id=3267102&page=

The MIT site says that it's goal for 2008 is:
"Vision 2008
The program has four goals for 2008. The first, fully functioning, tissue engineered, replacement liver and kidney systems will be demonstrated in an animal model. A three dimensional, computer generated, maxilo-facial reconstructed bone matrix will be constructed, cellularized and implanted in a large animal model. The next generation cartilage replacement system will be tissue engineered using nano-fiber substrate technology. And, a tissue engineered living tooth replacement will be fabricated, tested and implanted clinically."
http://www.cimit.org/tengineer.html

Hmmmm... no brains there.

Your second link is an article about your first link.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031014072010.htm

Hmmmm... no brains there either.

So where exactly is Mr. Schiavo supposed to send Terri's body for this new and exciting brain regeneration treatment?

I find that in general, once deep in a hole, further digging is inadvisable. It is ok to be wrong every now and then.

[lonestarnot]

346. Here we go again....not bit'n today....

[kaitykaity]

373. Anyone here think her husband is her next of kin and

his decision should be respected? Once he goes through
all of the legal hoops that is?

Horrible situation, no doubt. To be put on display like
some freak in a freak show.

[Lars39]

375. Yes, he IS the next of kin, and he's been thru all of the

hoops and won.
A terrible precedence would be set if the parents were to prevail.

[Bouncy Ball]

395. Her husband is most definitely her next of kin, that has never

been in dispute. And next of kin makes these decisions. And yeah, he's gone through all kinds of legal hoops.

She is a political football at this point. Which is really sad.

[kaitykaity]

397. It's obscene.

What her parents have done is obscene -- filming her in
this condition without her permission or consent, showing
her the world, invading her privacy. It's like dying 1000
times, to have people look at her with pity or digust or
revulsion.

What a sick, sad place this is, these Unites States.

[janx]

407. What I want to know is...

which one? One of them knows what he or she is doing.

[tammywammy]

415. It's disgusting

And not only that they filmed her, but that they then spliced it down to the few moments that they deem "show their cause." I've seen those clips, only after reading that the court saw the WHOLE film.

Terri was a beautiful woman, but also suffered from bulimia. And now the struggle is should she be fed. I think that if Terri was in there, she wouldn't want to be seen in these conditions.

And lastly, I think the statement from her parents that they wouldn't want to remove the feeding tube, even IF she had told them she didn't want it, just shows that they have gone past the issue of the tube. It's more of a fight for what THEY want, not what Terri wants.

[kaitykaity]

431. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

And of course to stoke the flames of the controversy, the M$M
only shows us the parents' "highlight reel" -- or at least
that's all I had seen.

:eyes:

[tammywammy]

436. Thanks for the welcome!

If only people would go over to abstractappeal.com to read the actual court documents. To me (a non-lawyer) it just seems so cut and dry. He's her husband period. Nothing else matters, he's the next of kin.

[dddem]

428. Pardon my ignorance

I did not realize Terri's condition was a result of bulimia. Isn't bulimia caused, in part, to a sense of not having control of one's life or destiny? Ironic.

If I were her mother (I have 2 daughters), I would fight tooth and nail to "save" my child. I think that's what parents instinctively do. I also think it's the wrong thing to do.

If I were her, I would not want to have spent the last 15 years, and the next God knows how many years in the condition she is in. I would want to move on. I would hope my husband loved me enough to fight for me, even though people would question his motives.

I believe in God. I believe we have a "soul". I think her soul is trapped in that body, and needs to be released.

God bless this family, they are all suffering.

[LisaL]

435. Soul trapped? Soul gone? I don't believe in God, and I don't

believe in souls. But for people who do, some of them say her soul had already departed. Why would it be trapped in her body?

[mondo joe]

437. The BS miracle cures being touted would equally apply to ANY living will

The BS miracle cures being touted as reasons to not remove Terri's life support would necessarily apply to removal of life support or DNR orders for ANYONE.

If your rationale to maintain life support is that someone will be able to miraculously grow a cerebral cortex, then you'd have to maintain life support for EVERYONE on it, because some miracle cure might be found.

If you support the legal right to terminate life support, the possibility of some miracle in the future is irrelevant.

[meganmonkey]

439. This shouldn't even be a public issue - it doesn't matter what

any of us think. There are laws, they should be followed, the courts have spoken. This is nobody's business but Terry's and Michael's.

[LisaL]

441. Discussing it on a public message board hardly means

interfering. As for private business between husband and wife, if I knew my neighbor was going to kill his wife, should I interfere or not?

[mondo joe]

442. Don't compare this private family matter to an illegal action

Assault is illegal.

This is not.

[LisaL]

447. Sometimes laws don't make much sense.

If Michael put a pillow over Terri's head, he would be charged with murder, even if at the time her feeding tube was removed and she was about to die.

[mondo joe]

450. You're really taking Randall Terry's arguments against abortion to heart

That's right out of the anti choice handbook.

[meganmonkey]

449. I never said 'interfere'

and I never said there was anything wrong with posting about it on a message board.

I merely gave my opinion, which is that this is none of my business.

As for 'interfering', if you knew your neighbor was going to kill his wife, by all means, please do.

I have no idea what that has to do with the case being discussed here. I am guessing that you are trying to equate this with Michael trying to kill his wife. Assuming that is what you were implying, I believe it would be her medically trained caretakers who would be removing the feeding tube, not Michael himself. Additionally, if this is allowed to happen, it wouldn't be Michael making the decision, it would be the courts (one after another, in ruling after ruling....). So I don't see how that would make him a murderer.

(edit for typo)

[LisaL]

467. Michael is the one who asked the courts to make a

decision. He is the one who testified that she wouldn't want to "live that way". If it wasn't for him, nobody would be removing her feeding tube. As for your analogy that he is not doing it with his own hands-well, if you hire someone to kill your wife, you would still be charged with murder. Of course, in this case, it's perfectly legal, if the courts say so.

[meganmonkey]

473. And since it is legal, it is not 'murder'

You are using terminology that has no validity in this case.

Your opinion on this case is based on your emotion, not facts, as you have displayed over the course of these threads. I am not trying to say that this is wrong, just that I disagree. I certainly react emotionally about things like this too, but I base my judgments and decisions on facts, logic, and law. Basing decisions on emotion without thinking them through is how things like the Iraq War and Patriot Act happen, IMHO.

Agree to disagree.

Peace.

[mondo joe]

475. Are you opposed to all removal of life support for anyone?

Your arguments appear to support that position.

[deek]

443. Count me in as one who believes

Terri is merely severly disabled, not PVS, and should not be starved to death.

My daughter looks like Terri in those videos. She has a full and wonderful life. If Michael allowed it, so would Terri.

[mondo joe]

444. The science says otherwise.

[WoodrowFan]

451. who need science?

let's all clap our hands and sing a happy song and Terri will grow a new brain, with all her memories intact!

[mondo joe]

452. Or law?

The science is wrong.

The physicians are wrong.

The courts are wrong.

The guardian is wrong.

It's all wrong - you can tell because someone FEELS that way.

[superconnected]

472. hehehehehe

*grin*

I didn't realize this topic was going to get into brain transplants and growing new brains. I still don't get how spinal fluid replaced her brain. But what the heck. At this point, the happy song sounds like the thing to do.

[still_one]

446. Have you heard of a morphine drip?

that is how it is done

[maddiejoan]

448. with apologies to Terry --but this thread reminds me of:

The Parrot Sketch


Praline : John Cleese
Shopkeeper: Michael Palin
Porter: Terry Jones
Colonel: Graham Chapman


Mr Praline walks into shop carrying a dead parrot in a cage.
He walks to counter where shopkeeper tries to hide below cash register.


PRALINE
Hello, I wish to register a complaint... Hello? Miss?

SHOPKEEPER
What do you mean, miss?

PRALINE
Oh, I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint.

SHOPKEEPER
Sorry, we're closing for lunch.

PRALINE
Never mind that my lad, I wish to make a complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

SHOPKEEPER
Oh yes, the Norwegian Blue. What's wrong with it?

PRALINE
I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's dead, that's what wrong with it.

SHOPKEEPER
No, no it's resting, look!

PRALINE
Look my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.

SHOPKEEPER
No, no sir, it's not dead. It's resting.

PRALINE
Resting?

SHOPKEEPER
Yeah, remarkable bird the Norwegian Blue, beautiful plumage, innit?

PRALINE
The plumage don't enter to it - it's stone dead.

SHOPKEEPER
No, no - it's just resting.

PRALINE
All right then, if it's resting I'll wake it up. (shouts into cage) Hello Polly! I've got a nice cuttlefish for you when you wake up, Polly Parrot!

SHOPKEEPER
(jogging cage) There it moved.

PRALINE
No he didn't. That was you pushing the cage.

SHOPKEEPER
I did not.

PRALINE
Yes, you did. (takes parrot out of cage, shouts) Hello Polly, Polly (bangs it against counter) Polly Parrot, wake up. Polly. (throws it in the air and lets it fall to the floor) Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

SHOPKEEPER
No, no it's stunned.

PRALINE
Look my lad, I've had just enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased. And when I bought it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its lack of movement wad due to it being tired and shagged out after a long squawk.

SHOPKEEPER
It's probably pining for the fiords.

PRALINE
Pining for the fiords, what kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got home?

SHOPKEEPER
The Norwegian Blue prefers kipping on its back. Beautiful bird, lovely plumage.

PRALINE
Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot, and I discovered that the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been nailed there.

SHOPKEEPER
Well of course it was nailed there. Otherwise it would muscle up to those bars and voom.

PRALINE
Look matey (picks up parrot) this parrot wouldn't voom if I put four thousand volts through it. It's bleeding demised.

SHOPKEEPER
It's not, it's pining.

PRALINE
It's not pining, it's passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot.

SHOPKEEPER
Well, I'd better replace it then.

PRALINE
(to camera) If you want to get anything done in this country you've got to complain till you're blue in the mouth.

SHOPKEEPER
Sorry guv, we're right out of parrots.

PRALINE
I see. I see. I get the picture.

SHOPKEEPER
I've got a slug.

PRALINE
Does it talk?

SHOPKEEPER
Not really, no.

PRALINE
Well, it's scarcely a replacement, then is it?

SHOPKEEPER
Listen, I'll tell you what, (handing over a card) tell you what, if you go to my brother's pet shop in Bolton he'll replace your parrot for you.

PRALINE
Bolton eh?

SHOPKEEPER
Yeah.

PRALINE
All right. He leaves, holding the parrot.

[deek]

457. Check out discussions in Disability Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=250

There are a number of them that apply to this situation.

[greymattermom]

463. As for brain research

Bush's budget amounts to a cut. Ironic isn't it.

[Rhiannon12866]

470. I happen to agree with you.

I don't know enough about the reality of her condition, but I don't think that anybody does. If this woman had a Living Will, then none of this would have come up. My suspicion is that the husband just wants to be relieved of her because she's a burden and doesn't he have children with somebody else? I just think he wants to be done with her. I just believe that there's hope where there's still life, and, I agree, she's not being kept alive by artificial means, just fed. And her parents, obviously, are willing to go to any lengths for their daughter. She is not a burden to them. I think that the husband should just back off and let the parents have their peace and wait for nature to take its course, which it inevitably will, one way or another.:-(

[Lars39]

480. A feeding tube IS artificial means.

The woman has no cerebral cortex. It won't regenerate and Terri won't
miraculously "come out of it". Her husband is her next of kin.
He is fulfilling Terri's wishes that she not "live" this way.
Read the court document at www.abstractappealcom

[Rhiannon12866]

485. Sure, I'll read it. And I have also seen much medical evidence on the news

But I don't blame her parents for fighting for her, nor for not trusting this guy. He has had children with other women and she is now just a burden to him. A passing remark that he conveniently remembered is not the same as a Living Will. If she had signed one of those, I'd agree that he had a case.:shrug:

[MoonRiver]

474. This is the process that happens every day to people under Hospice

care. At first I was horrified by the idea of this being done to people, even if they requested it, which they frequently do, in living wills. But, I found out that the people are given a clinical dose of morphine during the time it takes them to die. They don't feel the hunger and thirst like you would expect. I'm convinced that it is a humane, painless, and respectful way to let our terminal loved ones go.

[Ganja Ninja]

477. I think when the terminally ill are ready to die we should ...

be as compassionate as we are with a family pet by putting them down in a painless and humane fashion. I don't want to see her starved to death when they could give her a shot and let her go quickly and painlessly.

[Freddie Stubbs]

482. That would be the more humane thing to do, but

I don't think that the law would alow that. Unfortuatley our laws have not caught up to technology.

[mmonk]

478. Tough question if she didn't

leave any instructions. However, I have to wonder how much events are selfishness on the family's part.

[mondo joe]

479. The more selfish decision in many cases is to sustain the person

well beyond any hope of recovery or quality of life.

[VelvetMonkeyWrench]

483. Courts administer "law", not fairness or justice

Starvation is a very grusome way to go. Much too similar to Nazi death camps for my tastes, and now that assisted "feeding" has been classified by FL as "life support", the door will be open for many abusive scenarios. We are on a very slippery slope here.

If the judge insists it be this way, let HIM pull the tube.

If the law dictates judicially ordered killings, starvation is certainly NOT the way it should be done. Lethal injections of heavy narcotic would seem a much more humane, painless, and less disfiguring way to go.

Also, FL state criminal codes make starving an animal to death a state felony. Maybe she's not human anymore as some maintain, but she's certainly an animal.

[deek]

487. precisely eom

.

[ultraist]

484. Any updates on her condition? I thought they took the feeding tube out

Did they?

[SW FL Dem]

486. Not yet - it is scheduled to come out at 1 pm Friday

Unless the FL legislature passes another last minute law to stop it. They are trying.